The best commute transport is the one you don't have to use.
Remote work is the solution.
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026
29 points (75.4% liked)
Showerthoughts
42424 readers
582 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It's a win-win.
Office/computer/phone type jobs get to stay home, satisfaction and productivity goes up.
In person jobs now have far less cars on the roads every day, rush hour isn't as much of a problem anymore, less time and $ wasted stuck in traffic.
Remote work is amazing, and honestly office jobs should move to that.
But then there's plenty of jobs that require you to be present in person and do things in the physical world.
Sure, remote work is nice. But there are plenty of reasons to go outside and travel around for other reasons. Holidays, trips, visiting friends, retirement.
I think if the number of travels is nor al big (once or twice a week) it's not a problem people using cars.
The big problem is when every single person use the car minimum of twice a day, all at roughly the same hours and going to the same places. Plus all the other leisure travel.
Just cutting out work commute would solve a lot of problems and a big chunk of energy consumption and pollution emissions.
This was an episode of doctor who.
I actually saw this one. Pretty funny. For those who want to check it, it's apparently Episode 3 from Series 3: 181 – "Gridlock"
This is a much talked about risk in urban planning, where empty cars going slowly around inner suburbs will be cheaper than parking costs. The "zero occupant problem"
Congestion pricing, taxes based off mileage or driving time and providing depots on the edge of cities are ways to combat this
The "zero occupant problem"
The fact that this has a name is such an indictment of failures in urban planning. I'm going to assume an American coined the term because a lot of other places have not fought the idea of public transport as much as the American automobile industry.
That would make sense actually. How would congestion pricing work though? Like you have to pay for the duration you occupy the road? How to track this?
It's only really trackable with a gross amount of surveillance, either gps based inside the car or cameras on every street
I suppose they could do something like the toll roads, where you drive through a coil and trigger a wireless badge. Everytime you trigger it you will pay a certain fee. If you don't have a badge, your license plate is recorded and you get sent a fine. Similar to speed cameras you already have.
But if ALL the cars auto drive, and can communicate with each other, it would probably become more efficient and faster than human traffic.
Not Just Bikes did a video about this exact topic, and how it would turn our cities into dystopian hellscapes. Because we'd have to ban everything except the intetconnected cars from the streets.
Wait, hear me out.
We make only a few streets for self driving cars only. We could even actively prevent other traffic by fitting the cars with special wheels that fit on special tracks. And to optimize space, we connect the cars together.
We could put those roads underground in tunnels so there'll be no interference from other traffic. And then they could go on rails too and maybe make the car bigger so they can fit more people.
In that case you would have to ban human-driven cars from the roads no?
There is an argument that a connected Borg collective of self driving cars would be capable of running vehicles with smaller gaps in between them, thus reducing congestion and improving efficiency in traffic.
Hi, traffic engineer here.
That's never going to happen. It's nothing but a tech-bro bullshit fantasy.
Why? Because cyclists and pedestrians exist. In order to make it possible for the kinds of gains you're talking about to happen, every road user has to be an autonomous vehicle, but (aside from freeways) streets simply do not work that way and never will.
(Oh, and also: even at the limit, the best it can ever accomplish is to be an inferior approximation of a train.)
I suppose self-driving cars could drive like regular cars on the small roads, but then go to big specialized highways where they can go full speed.
But that doesn't make sense anyway, because that would not save you that much time anymore. And in that case you could just have regular cars to drive to a station with parking and then take the train to your destination
We already have those big specialized highways; that's what freeways are. The trouble is, even if autonomous driving were capable of doubling the lane capacity (and IIRC the theoretical best case is actually less than that, closer to a 50% improvement), induced demand is still a thing. It maybe buys you a reprieve for a decade or so, but after that you're right back to "just one more lane, bro!"
But at what point would it just be better to just have a self-driving bus, or even put a railway instead?
At every point. Public transport is more efficient at transporting people than private cars will ever be. If we have enough of it, it's not even going to be crammed during rush hours.
If all cars were driven with good autonomous features (we're a long way off) there would be no traffic. Traffic is solely due to human error
No, that's not how traffic works. That's like saying a pipe can flow an infinite amount of fluid when you used a liquid instead of a gas because you got rid of the empty space between particles.
Even with theoretically-perfect timing and control, the road still has a finite capacity because cars take up a certain amount of space, both stationary and moving (following distance is still a thing even with computer control because of the mechanical limitations of brake performance). Moreover, it isn't that much higher than we can manage with humans driving the vehicles already.
The only ways to exceed that limit are to make the vehicles smaller (e.g. bikes) or pack more people into them (e.g. buses or trains).
Traffic is massively impacted by people breaking after ending up too close to another vehicle. There are great demonstration videos in the late 90s / early 2000s demonstrating this. I don't anticipate me stating this fact to gain any support, because, you know, Lemmy says AI bad no matter what.
You're right: when traffic is at its critical density, that's often what triggers the shift from the free-flow regime to the congested regime. But just because you make computers drive the cars -- even assuming they did it perfectly without randomly braking, which they don't -- that doesn't mean it eliminates that flipping between regimes. At best, it might get you a little bit more capacity before hitting that critical threshold, but eventually it's still going to, and then something -- a squirrel darting into the road, a sunbeam glinting off something the wrong way and momentarily confusing the AI, a bump that disturbs the car just enough to make it slow down a fraction of a MPH, etc. -- is going to trigger that shift to the congested regime anyway.
This is simply not true on its face.
Unlike the thought expirement you're running in your head, the real world does not have the luxury of avoiding the possibilities of sudden mechanical failure, a soccer ball being kicked into the road, or unsecured debris falling out of the bed of a truck. These are privately owned and maintained vehicles after all, under many more engineering constraints and usage pressures than just achieving maximum reliablilty in all conditions.
These things require some degree of margin for error. In general, any car should be able to fully stop before entering the space currently occupied by the car in front of it in order to account for unexpected disturbances. However, as car speeds increase, so do the tolerances required to maintain that safe margin, exponentially in fact.
Removing the human from the driver seat doesn't mean we get to start running bumper to bumper at 70mph; at best it means that cars can get away with slightly smaller follow distances than humans need to account for their comparably slow reaction times.
If you instead believe that we should exert enough control over self driving cars such that we could actually realistically prevent catastrophe while running high speed bumper to bumper traffic, then I have great news for you! We already have that, and it's called a train.
It's not a thought experiment in my head. It's a highly studied and demonstrated fact. And it doesn't require bumper to bumper cars, it requires cars consistently traveling with safe breaking distance, something humans didn't do.
I don't refute that. I agree that far too many humans are far too comfortable with unsafe following distances.That's not the claim you made though:
Traffic is solely due to human error
And as I said, it's just simply not true. Congestion happens because car traffic does not scale or recover from disturbances efficiently. Human behavior exacerbates this, sure, but cars are just fundamentally bad at moving people when a road is at capacity. Chalking traffic it up to "human error" alone misses the forest for the trees.
This, but unironically. Self-driving cars will completely ruin driving, maybe permanently?
I hope not.. Even now I already feel like I want to move to a place where everything is reachable by foot or bike. But with these property prices, that's basically a faraway dream...