this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026

957 points (99.3% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

40951 readers

4200 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!

Rules:

1. Be Respectful

Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...

2. No Illegal Content

Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...

3. No Spam

Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...

4. No Porn/Explicit

Content

-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...

5. No Enciting Harassment,

Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts

-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...

6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.

Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)

Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

LillianVS@lemmy.world

WiildFiire@lemmy.world

Decoy321@lemmy.world

The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world

The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world

957

Someone should really develop this idea (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 2 days ago by jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world

57 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago

What if we had one BIG self driving car that dozens of people could comfortablely sit inside while traveling on a shared route?

We could have multiple vehicles traveling that same route so you're almost always assured a ride without waiting long. And as were saving a lot of money with predictable road wear, less pollution and less accidents, we could probably make the rides very affordable, if not free. Last thought, kind of out there , but we could even have one person sit at the front of the bus and look out a window - If they saw a child, animal or some other potential issue on the road ahead, they could see it well ahead of time and hit some sort of hand or foot button that slows the vehicle to a stop temporarily so there aren't any software related accidents from the self driving vehicle that result in injury or loss of life.

It will be like an uber... But for all of US. We'll call it UBUS!

[–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

https://youtube.com/shorts/-oVxDaLKtkc

https://youtube.com/shorts/dndwukeJz5w

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

But, my profit margin!

-Oil and gas companies

[–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 80 points 2 days ago (3 children)

That's actually...kinda genius. It's not just fresh thinking: it's a scalable and green solution to a real problem. I think you could really make a difference with this idea. Would you like to work out some ways we can make life worse for the working class while we implement it?

[–] xavier666@lemmy.umucat.day 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Green solution? That sounds like communism

[–] the_grass_trainer@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago

Green solution? That sounds like weed!

[–] First_Thunder@lemmy.zip 20 points 2 days ago

It’s a niche idea from a small European nation, but have you tried having the trains late 2/3 of the time?

[–] kingofras@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

I just can’t get you out of my head, boy your mechanical phrasing and can-do enthusiasm are all I think about

[–] StaticFalconar@lemmy.world 39 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Theres an entire unionized industry of train operators that has a problem with this statement.

[–] tias@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Up until very recently all train route planning in Sweden was done manually with huge sheets of paper and rulers. Scheduling trains is a very hard problem due to the inability for one train to pass another in many places and the constantly high congestion. Any change in the schedule affects basically the entire rail network.

In computer science it belongs to the class of "NP-hard" problems which are essentially intractable to solve optimally. There are various approximate methods that can be employed to get something that's almost always good enough.

[–] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

done manually with huge sheets of paper and rulers. Scheduling trains is a very hard problem

Just because it is a hard problem, it doesn't mean it is easier to do with paper and rulers than with algorithms. So the problem being "hard" should be unrelated to Sweden being behind the times.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

The problem with train scheduling is that computers don't just make it better. There's a very real chance computers could make it worse or result in approximately the same outcome but not require millions in investment into a new system.

[–] kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days ago

I'm having trouble understanding how that relates to the statement about train operators, the ones actually driving the trains because most trains are not autonomous.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] AliOski@feddit.nl 5 points 2 days ago (10 children)

The problem with this is that they don't solve the same problem.

I use the train for almost all my transportation, trains are amazing.

However, the train doesn't bring me to my front door. The train doesn't bring me to my exact destination.

A self-driving car would save me at least 45 minutes during my commutes (one way), purely because of the flexibility.

[–] ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Literally buses?

If you have volume/demand problems:

Buses not frequent enough
Bus stop is not close enough
Buses take a circuitous route / take too long

This will naturally increase the more people use them. So the only limiting factor is you, your family, neighbours etc.

[–] AliOski@feddit.nl 0 points 3 hours ago

Thought about the limiting factor called "workforce"?

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A ~~self-driving~~ car would save me at least 45 minutes during my commutes (one way), purely because of the flexibility.

Fixed that for you. I don't see how "self-driving" would be 45 minutes faster.

[–] AliOski@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

True, but that requires me having a drivers license + requires me driving. We are talking about the comparison to train commutes and the usefulness of self-driving technology. I don't drive the train.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You used the self-driving bit saving you time as an argument in favor of self-driving cars, hence the correction. The time save has nothing to do with who operates the car (unless it's a F1 driver).

The problem is that this whole debate is poisoned. Self-driving cars are not, and will likely never be safe. They can be safer on average than human drivers, it's just that other people will die in accidents than those killed by reckless drivers. The ones dying will die due to software errors / profit calculations and the likes. As such, promoting self-driving without a mechanical guiding control (as in railways) is highly unethical.

It might be possible to overcome the technological challenges of safe self-driving, but humankind as a whole is too selfish and profit-driven to ever reach a point where that kind of research will even be funded with any meaningful budget. That's my prediction.

[–] AliOski@feddit.nl 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In one of my other comments I mentioned the reduce of traffic jams as an argument, due to coordination between vehicles.

About the accidents: reckless drivers also (mainly even I think, no source) kill innocent people on the road. Reducing the total amount of deaths is more important than some supposed moral superiority of only reckless drivers dying vs people dying due to technical faults.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In one of my other comments I mentioned the reduce of traffic jams as an argument, due to coordination between vehicles.

Yes, that is possible. However, in today's neofascist regimes, this is a beloved excuse for total surveillance. Not that they still need it - we basically have always-online and trackable cars already anyways. :(

About the accidents: reckless drivers also (mainly even I think, no source) kill innocent people on the road. Reducing the total amount of deaths is more important than some supposed moral superiority of only reckless drivers dying vs people dying due to technical faults.

This is an alternative of the trolley problem. There's no clear ethical answer to this. Personally, I think that today's technology proves that companies will always put profits over safety, and I will always prefer to control my own vehicle when it comes to personal travel, over having any kind of safety relevant automation. Just think of Boeing's 737 MAX debacle, where Boeing murdered (with the amount of criminal energy they put into obfuscating the redesign of the plane there's no other way for me to see this) the crew and passengers of two civil airliners for profit.

We're not doing anything meaningful against reckless drivers in today's world, even when it's trivial, and our governments are corrupt to the core and will never exert more control over corporations than they will over private people who drive recklessly.

[–] AliOski@feddit.nl 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

The last part about governments not acting upon reckless driving, I think it depends on the country. In the Netherlands it is pretty well done. Most disciplined drivers you could find in the world.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

The last part about governments not acting upon reckless driving, I think it depends on the country. In the Netherlands it is pretty well done.

Absolutely not! My experience from a couple of years living and driving in NL: Speeding is expensive, but has no other consequences -> speed limits are effective for poor people only. No other controls are in effect. The average speed measurement over longer stretches of road is a nice touch, but again, no consequences but expensive tickets. Also, contrary to Switzerland, fines are NOT bound to your income / wealth.

Most disciplined drivers you could find in the world.

Also not. Things wrong with the average Dutch driver that come to mind immediatley: Due to the low speed limits, overtaking another vehicle is a long process - that's not the fault of the drivers, but the system's fault (although the average speed limit is designed to allow a quick burst in speed for this, it's hard to know when you'll pay an expensive fine and I wouldn't rely on it either). What the average Dutch driver does with it however is a problem:

the driver overtaking will creep up to the car to be overtaken's rear bumper before changing to the left lane, and will typically go right back into the original lane after clearing the slower car by like 5 meters - due to the slow process of "catching up" this leads to minutes with a very dangerous distance to the car in front of them, and will occasionally cause accidents (thanks to the low speed those are not as fatal).
the driver being overtaken basically never slows down to speed up the process and make it safer for all involved
on the contrary, people will sometimes even drive at very irregular speeds and speed up a little just when someone attempts to overtake them

and then 4) many Dutch drivers do not understand zip merging and hate people doing it correctly. If a lane is closed down, people will merge onto the other lane(s) kilometres before the road closure, and there will always be someone who behaves aggressively towards vehicles using the lane until the frontmost part where it is closed and the zip merger should be done. I've seen truckers(!) veer to the side to try and intimidate cars passing for a zip merger, because they perceive these people as "cutting the line"

[–] AliOski@feddit.nl 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

It is clear you have grown up in another country. You are just trying to drive how you are used to drive in another country. That doesn't make how you are used to drive safer and the system any more unsafe.

"Bumperkleven" is forbidden. Whoever is creeping up to you in a few meters is breaking the law. You are also not supposed to merge back to the lane right in front of the other driver. I barely even see this happening. Most people just stay in their lane after taking somebody over, unless someone else with a higher speed is getting closer from behind them.
why the fuck should the person getting overtaken slow down? That adds unpredictability to the equation, for the person overtaking and the person behind you. That is super dangerous if you've been doing that. The slower the process, the better the situation is under control. You don't want sudden changes in the situation on the road. Just keep driving with a constant speed, the people around you will be able to predict where you'll be and the situation on the road becomes much simpler. You are the driver people are saying "wtf is he doing" if you've been slowing down while getting overtaken. Two cars driving next to each other is not a dangerous situation. Where did you get that from???? Our infrastructure allows for it because the lines on our roads are super clear. It is only dangerous if somebody didn't notice the car besides them or forgets they are there. But that's dangerous no matter the situation, not just because they are side-by-side.

Never seen this happen. People being overtaken always keep driving at the speed they are driving at. You are the only person here suddenly slowing down while being overtaken. You are that person you are talking about.
The idea behind it is that the flow of traffic should not be interrupted. The earlier you merge while everybody including yourself is driving at a steady pace, the better. The end of the lane forces the driver to get to a stop, and if you choose to only merge there, you don't have any flexibility there. If you aren't so lucky that you can merge instantaneously without slowing down, you would merge with a speed of zero. This forces the whole other lane to go on their brakes because you want to merge. It interrupts the flow of traffic. Yes, we treat people that try to get in front as people trying to get in front of the line because it fucks everybody else up, yes. I dont know where you got the idea from that your way of doing it is the proper way. It clearly isn't. Merge as early as possible, it allows to keep the flow of traffic flowing.

About speed tickets: if you only go slightly above the speed limit, you'll get a slap on the wrist (an expensive ticket). However, if you drive at dangerous speeds, you just lose your license. So I don't really understand what you are talking about.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

A real self driving car would increase your commute because it would be able to transport children, dogs, sandwiches etc and the overall effect would be a like 30%+ increase in traffic as people buy or rent more self driving trips for people and objects normally not able to rent rides.

The effect would be analogous to "Jevon's Paradox" where more efficiency increases demand.

[–] Jiral@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

A city built for cars (no matter if "self driving" or not) has to be built much more spread out. Distances for everything multiply. At the same time that spread out infrastructure leads to heavily mono-directional traffic, making rush hour load much worse.

That is why people in car only cities aren't any faster than cities well designed for public transit. Yes, heavy rail does not cut it alone, that is why there is also light rail, bus lines etc. With all of that, you can get anywhere you need to go, in places that are not primarily or exclusively built for the car.

[–] AliOski@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Who said car-only? I said that self-driving cars and trains/buses/subway do not solve the same problem. They can coexist just like how they do now.

The only thing this technology does is allowing commute time to become more productive and allowing more automatization for a job that always has shortage (think of bus drivers). If self-driving technology would become sufficiently good, the bus in my village could drive 4 times an hour, purely because there is no bus-driver necessary.

Also, things like traffic jams are supposed to become rarer too with autonomous vehicles, because all those cars are supposed to coordinate with each other. You ever realized that many traffic jams could be solved if everybody would start driving at the exact same speed at the exact same moment, instead of accelerating, slowing down, accelerating, slowing down. This is all because of human reaction time and the lack of coordination between vehicles. Traffic accidents are also supposed to go down.

[–] Jiral@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

The car share can be replaced with self driving cars, however if you make self driving cars more attractive than cars now, you'll shift the balance and are heading towards more car centric and therefore more hostile and less attractive places again.

It is a nice fairy tale hat self driving cars are more space efficient. Real service patterns have shown that they fill up road infrastructure more than regular cars as they will do either fill up trips or need to drive everything twice. Also, making use of these fancy advantages (higher speeds, shorter breaking distance, dynamic crissings without traffic lights) make roads much more pedstrian hostile, more highway like.

[–] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 4 points 1 day ago

After visiting Tokyo, I'm convinced that both can exist. Trains take 95% of the travel and the 5% of the time you need to be someplace specific, car it is.

As for to your door... I was a 10 minute walk to every single destination I needed.

[–] wezzzy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Better train infatructure plus busses and metrolines will help with this problem

[–] AliOski@feddit.nl 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I don't live in the USA, I live in the Netherlands, infrastructure here is very good, public transport-wise too. It's just that a train can't go to every little village that exists. There is a bus, but it only comes and goes once an hour (which is entirely reasonable for my village), which severely affects the travel time.

[–] wezzzy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago (8 children)

Ns is wel tof ja maar het kan altijd beter en self driving cars gaan dit probleem niet fixen je kan beter de fiets of een normalen auto pakken en met beteren aansluitingen hoef je geen uur te wachten

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] Jiral@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

And self driving cars will do nothing to change anything. I you push for them, more than for cars currently, cities in the Netherlands will be much worse places and traffic will get much worse as well.

Cars are of course part of the mobility equation, especially in rural regions with small settlements. 1 hour connections can still be perfectly fine for commuting but it can only be a supporting service there. The story is completely different one as soon as you get anywhere close to any major city. In the Netherlands, most people live in such locations.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days ago

In a Tunnel!

load more comments