Smart Driving Cars episode 405: Addressing the Opposition to Driverless Riding & more

It's the Smart Driving Cars podcast. We are glad you are tuning in. I'm Fred Fishkin,

along with the Faculty Chair of Autonomous Vehicle Engineering at Princeton University.

Alan Kornhouser has got some companies sitting next to him. Hi, Alan and Michael Senna.

Hey, hi, Fred. And look at what we accomplished. We brought two continents together.

We brought Sweden together with America because now Sweden is going to be the 54th state. We're

going to have 51st is Canada, 52nd is Greenland, 53rd is Venezuela, and 54th is Sweden.

Yeah. I don't look happy about that, Michael. I won't comment on that.

And Michael is a consultant and the co-author with Alan of the Real Case for Driverless

Mobility. Great to see you again, Michael. Wonderful to be here. We're together. Nice to

be in Princeton. And Michael, in the January issue of Mobility Industry Insights, the headline is

addressing the opposition to driverless riding. Interesting open with a quote from Atari and

Chuck E. Cheese founder Nolan Bushnell. Well, I've had the pleasure of interviewing and the quote is

innovation is hard. It is. Yes. Yes. Yes. Now, I've been trying to do it for over 50 years and

guess how much success I've had. Zero. Well, Michael goes into some of the historical details

that are relevant to the battle here when it comes to driverless mobility.

Well, I think I'll start with the end with the summary. Why I wrote this.

Reading about driverless cars, whether they're Waymo or or or or Zooks or

whatever, whatever cars are out there trying to present themselves as driverless.

Most of what is written about them is that they're there to improve safety. And once we have these

vehicles, no cars will crash and everybody everybody will live and there will be no deaths and so on.

And you would think, well, if that's the case and everyone believes that, then there's absolutely

no opposition to driverless vehicles and there's no reason for you for us to even think about

the possibility that there might be opposition. That's not the case.

First of all, we haven't, no one has presented a clear cut case for driverless cars being safer

than humans. And even if we did present a clear cut case, airtight

case, there would be quite a lot of people who wouldn't believe it. That's just the way society

works these days. So I thought I would take the opportunity to present all of the arguments

against driverless cars and try to and try to address each one of those issues

individually. No, are they safe? They're safer? Are they more safe? Are they we don't want them

because they're going to eliminate so many jobs? We don't want them because they'll never make the

kinds of decisions that we want to make. I'm not going to go through all of those issues. I think

the best thing is to read the issue. You can forget all of the first part of the

article, which is providing the background, how we make decisions, how people make decisions,

why we make decisions, and then just go to each one of the points. At some future date,

there will be a decision made by those people who make decisions, governments,

that we either will or will not have driverless vehicles. Today, driverless vehicles are only

allowed in certain places in the United States where state governments have allowed them to operate.

In Europe, almost nowhere. In China, where the government of China has decided that they can

operate, but driverless cars are not allowed. They're not legal to be operated in any jurisdiction

without having special requirements. But at some point, whether it's five years or 10 years or

15 years, governments will make the decision. They'll make that decision based on their ethical

principles. That's how all decisions are made. We may not want to think about that,

but we have a constitution. Most countries have a constitution. In fact, in doing my research,

I found that most countries who have a constitution produce it after World War II,

and most of them are based on the U.S. Constitution. I recently finished a book

by Jill LePore on the history of the U.S. Constitution, which is definitely worth

reading, not only by Americans, but by other people as well, to understand what it is that

people are talking about. There's an article in the newspaper today saying two states, Illinois

and Minnesota, are suing the government because they feel that it's countering

the 10th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. What does that mean? Why is that there? Why would

people have any idea of what the 10th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution is and why two states

are suing the federal government for that purpose? But the decisions that will be made,

there will be or will not be, driverless cars allowed on every road, everywhere,

will be based on how our governments, and in the case of the United States, the federal government

and the state governments, determine whether these cars should be allowed, and they'll make that

decision based on how they perceive the cars being able to do what they say they should be doing.

The other part of the reason for writing this is that if you base all of your decisions,

like these decisions, on the ethical values and you forget the reason why you have transportation,

you're going to lose the whole argument at the beginning. We have transportation to get people

from where they are to where they want to go, and in most places, particularly in the United

States and Europe, those trips are taken by people in cars, and there's a reason for that.

And because of that, there are accidents and deaths that occur in many cases,

greater than in buses, greater in number than in trains, because 80% of the people are taking

the trips in those in cars, not in trains, not in buses, not on bicycles, they're not walking,

they're using the car because it provides the transportation that they need, when they need it,

how they need it, and according to their budgets, their ability to pay.

But there are a great number of people who aren't taking trips, either because

they can't afford a car of their own, they can't afford taxis, especially not Ubers or

Transportation Network company cars, and the buses and trains and trams and underground

subways don't take them to where they want to go. And if you factor in the possibility

that with a driverless vehicle, which takes the major cost of transportation out of the equation,

that is the driver, which is 60, 70% of the cost of providing a ride, you can reach more and more

people. So there's a latent demand that can be met. If you factor that into the decisions that

our politicians are going to make, 10, 5, 10 years, maybe sooner, about whether to allow

driverless vehicles, you may have a very different result. So that's why I write primarily,

and the things I write, the theme is there, and I take the theme in different ways and

different approaches and from different angles, but basically that's the reason for writing

this particular mobility industry insights.

Michael and I have agreed on this concept for some time. The presentation that I made at the

termination of the sixth summit had one big slide that Michael and I put together, which looked at

the demand for mobility and assigned it across the ways people then use the supply available

to then achieve that mobility, whether it is he's mentioned taxis, lift, trains, buses, BRTs,

whatever, cars and so on. That is around. That's what people do today that use it.

But in the center of that is in a substantial, at least my belief that there is a substantial amount

of latent demand, people that don't go, people that don't use mobility to achieve improvements

in their quality of life. Because in some sense, the only reason one travels

is to improve their quality of life. Otherwise, they stay at home. This is at least the first

thing that I say in my lecture in transportation. This is the supply of demand and supply of

transportation really provides the user with improved utility, improved quality of life.

Because every transportation system, it might provide some value. Sure, yes, we'd like to cruise

down Main Street in the summer with our top down, but for most trips, there's negative

utility. There's a cost associated with it, whether it be dollars of currency, dollars of

inconvenience, comfort, time, so on. But the reason why people travel is they find that all those

costs don't offset the additional value and the quality of life that the person's going to be

able to achieve when they get there. So there's a net plus. So everybody that goes someplace,

then actually improves their quality of life. Otherwise, they wouldn't have gone.

They're not stupid. And so now you find some people, the people that don't go,

it must mean that the costs associated with them getting to the next favorite,

the most favorite place that they would want to go right now is just Tudor and Haan.

And therefore, I'm going to sit here and do a podcast with Fred. Now, you can might, oh my

goodness, but I love doing podcasts, Zoomcasts with Fred. So therefore, it has to be something

really good for me to want to go to. Otherwise, I stay home. But if I can reduce the cost of

transportation, the perceived cost of transportation, the individual, not all of a sudden, whoa,

I'm going to get a net value out of going there. I'm going, bam.

And so really, as we look at the value of driverless mobility, it has an opportunity

to reduce that cost of transportation, the individuals, and reduce which cost of transportation.

Well, I mean, if you got a lot of money, then making it cheaper doesn't really matter.

Because that's not the thing that you really cared about. Because money, you know, it doesn't

matter. It's not really a cost. But my goodness, if cost is important to you, because you only

have a certain amount of it and you rather eat than go, then you're going to eat and not go.

But if you can make the cost a little bit less or a lot less, then maybe you can eat and go.

And now if you can eat and go, that's real value. Not as the value and at least what we've said in

the first book and what we continue to preach and so on and so forth, is that the real value

of driverless cars is to give rise to people who really need a ride. And those people that really

need a ride, the people that really need, are people that need a ride that is inexpensive.

Because we know that they're expensive ones that can make it really comfortable,

really go when I want, really go fast, really consume no time, really make the cost of that

transportation perceived to that individual so damn small. So I said almost anything that would

provide you value if you went to you. It's great. Now, we may have some newer listeners and viewers

who may be wondering, why isn't it the safety factor that would avoid all these crashes and

deaths and injuries? Safety is important. Safety is important. Safety is a necessary condition.

If the darn thing's going to be unsafe, then that's a big cost. Then rich people won't go

and poor people won't go. You can't make it cheap enough to go if it's unsafe. You can't

make it fast enough to go if it's unsafe. You can't make it comfortable enough if it's unsafe.

But you can get or achieve a point of safety in which it's safe enough. It doesn't have to

safety. It doesn't have to be zero. Everything's a risk. Oh my goodness. A meteorite might come

through crashing through the ceiling right now. Done. What I've said is that driverless cars,

driverless vehicles may be safer drivers than some humans some of the time,

but not all humans all of the time. The basis of the claims made by those who say that these cars

are going to be safer are unsubstantiated because you're comparing what is happening in a very small

area with very few cars to what's happening in a very large area with very many cars.

So those people who are promoting the concept of safety are those who are saying, what I call,

not I call, but who are the utilitarians, they're saying that the better, the more,

the better for most people should be good enough for the rest of the people.

And that's not a good enough argument. We've got to improve the lives of everyone. And if we extend

this, as we've been saying now, if you extend this beyond the argument of safety, of just safety,

which isn't substantiated, and basically is dependent on everyone believing that humans

are not capable of driving cars. And that's, unfortunately, that's not the case. Humans

have proven over the course of the last 100 years that they are capable of driving cars and they

are capable of making the kinds of decisions that are necessary. And the fact that today,

maybe close to 40,000 a few years ago before COVID, it was two or 3000 less. And the reason we have

more now is people are not paying paying attention and the cars are making them, allowing them to

do too many things at one time, along with our telephones. But the number of people who are dying

in car accidents, compared to the number of miles that are being driven or kilometers being driven

in other places in the world, is much, much, much lower. So cars are already doing a lot for safety.

And we know that they can do much, much more if we just changed a few laws that prohibited the

bad people from doing the bad things on our roads. People who misbehave, as Alan often uses that

term of misbehavior as a reason for most people, most of the accidents that occur. So it's the focus

safety that is, in many ways, preventing this technology from moving beyond

these little tests that are being done here and there. And the focus of the people who are writing

about it, say, oh, look what Waymo did here. There was an electrical outage in San Francisco and

Waymo couldn't make it through the intersections because all the red lights weren't working.

Well, if that's the message that you're sending out to everyone and you're basing everything on

safety, well, it's not going to work. The point is that there are lots of reasons why people can

be against them. One of them, I've got here, believe the driverless vehicles cannot make

ethical decisions. So if you say, well, we'll never be able to make those kinds of ethical,

you know, the trolley problem, over and over again, you've got the trolley problem. We have to be

able to solve the trolley problem if we're going to have driverless vehicles. There's an organization

that is dedicated to ensuring that we never have, before it's proven that artificial general

intelligence, which would really be required for us to be able to have driverless vehicles

everywhere at all times replacing all humans, but never allow that to happen unless we're

absolutely certain that the kill switches can never be overridden. We can't have a situation

like in 2001 and how, you know, where that, you know, the robots take over or many of these

situations. So it's not that they can't be safer. It's not that they may not be safer,

but it's not the only argument. It's not the only argument against them that they can never be safe,

or it's not the only argument in favor of them that they will be safer. There are many arguments

and we have to take all of those into account simultaneously and then be able to make a decision

based on our total basis of our ethical values in each one of our countries or regions of the

world. We may be first in Sweden or they may be first, probably not in Spain, but maybe in

Pennsylvania, maybe in, I don't know, New York, Massachusetts, or maybe there will be laws that

will be passed in the United States that will permit, in concert with the states, will permit

driverless vehicles to operate in larger areas than just, just test areas. But we have to take

all of these, all of the factors into account, not just focus on safety. Well, you know, when I,

where I go with this thing is with the trolley problem and it has to have the right ethical

value. Well, okay, better than my ethical value. I mean, there's almost no doubt that somebody's

going to divide, put a ethical value on these things that's better than my ethical value because,

you know, I'm not very ethical. So therefore, you know, these things, it's almost trivial for them

to be more ethical than me, but whatever. On the safety piece, the argument is, as we've said

exhaustively, if it's got to be perfectly safe everywhere, well, nothing is perfect anywhere.

So therefore, this isn't going to be perfect everywhere. So therefore, it's never going to

happen. And if that's the constraint you're going to make, then darn it, I'm out of this.

We're not doing any more podcasts. Forget handy rides. I'm playing golf the hell with all of you,

you know, you can go, you can go, you carry the mantle, the flag forward, I'm not going into that

battle. And it's not that, oh my goodness, I just want it to be unsafe. That's, that's, that's

garbage. Okay, everything, every reward has a risk. But please, write to me if you have a reward

that's no risk, boy, do I want to buy, oh, I want 10% of that sucker. Okay. And I'll be just such a

happy camper, please call me. Oh, I mean, I love you dearly. Come on. Okay. The issue is, is what is

the extent of the risk. And if it certainly there aren't places where it is riskier than others. If

I want to drive my car up the great wall as some car commercials claim that I can do, or if I want

to drive my car down some ravine as as as the Jeep commercials want me to do and through some

deep water with my with my snorkel up there to make sure that I can still get air into my engine.

Sure. Yeah, great. Okay. But there are a lot of places, a lot of places in the US of A,

in which it is pretty trivial to be really safe. Okay, not perfectly safe, but really and certainly,

I would argue, safe enough for me to take that risk to be able to get the reward.

Because the AVs have a unique reward that somehow nobody else with all the transportation

technology that we've had out there for the last how many century how many years of humans been

when was a wheel invented have not been able to deliver. Okay. New Jersey transit in 2023

spent $120 million given 1.3 million high quality rides than individuals.

I applaud them for giving those high quality rides demand responsive rides to individuals

through their paratransit service. They did they are very competent individuals run by an

enormously competent leader doing absolutely the best that they can for New Jerseyans.

But given the constraints that are put on them to do that,

each of those rides cost an average of 90 bucks.

It's not because they're stupid. It's not because they're they didn't work. It's not because they

didn't have, you know, Princeton graduates and do to do and everything, you know, some of my own

students out there trying to make it happen because of the things the ingredients that they had to

put into that soup 90 bucks.

What AVs provide us is a new ingredient. Maybe at least we believe it. I believe it. You believe

it. You know, you know, you're talking to the believers here that may allow us to do that

to give that high quality ride essentially as safe.

Maybe even safer. It'll not a whole hell of a lot more unsafe.

So safety's I'm taking a sort of equal. Not somebody may argue. Oh, no, no. I mean,

it's a poop show. Okay, if it is, then I'm sorry, then it's, you know, this is a this is a mirage.

But if it is,

then all of a sudden we may be able to give that mobility to at least 80 or 90 percent of those

trips that New Jersey Transit gave for maybe instead of 90 bucks a trip,

bucks a trip. Order of magnitude less. That's a big number. When you change things by an order of

man, we're not talking about it being an order of magnitude unsafe.

We may even be safer. Because we're not going to misbehave. It's not going to drink.

It's going to use its turn signals all the time. It's going to be courteous.

I've not seen it do a blue screen. So it's not going to freak out.

It knows the rules of the road. It's not going to run red lights.

It's it can see 360

all the time. I can't. I mean, I got a how long does it take me for me to see 360?

My cognitive cycles

at best 20 times a second. Maybe I used to be a 20 times. I may be a 15 or 10. Where am I? I don't

even know where I am. We're back to the safety thing. And I think, you know, and therefore this

is not a moron. This is this is it's at least it's in the same golf park. It's not better.

But the value proposition that we get out of this darn thing

is that we may be able to do it for nine bucks instead of 90 bucks.

The differential on this thing is on the affordability. Now, if affordability doesn't matter

to you, Fred, because you're so damn rich that you don't care about money. And that's not a big

deal for you. Nine bucks is the same thing as 90 bucks. And in fact, we've we've we've given you

nothing with this. Okay. If only if only if only if only then for some folks it is. And if I'm,

you know, where Google and Waymoons come from in Silicon Valley, at least looking at Silicon

Valley from here in New Jersey, everybody's that way in Silicon Valley, aren't they? At least they

make it seem to us back here. Not the Google employees who live in their cars because they

can't afford a place to live. Oh, well, they exit. I didn't I did not know they exist. Yeah,

they exist. Oh, but you know, if you're a person if you're a person in this in this

late demand group, which I estimate, you know, and I think, you know, I haven't done the hard

research and I haven't done all this stuff, but I'll I'll do my own Allen educated guess on it

is at least 10% of the one billion trips that are taking place today. There are at least 100

million trips in the US. My number. Okay. Blame me that are sitting at home. Why? Because if they

wanted to do what they wanted to want to do, it's going to cost society 90 bucks to do it.

And if it costs society only nine bucks to do it or cost them only nine bucks to do it or even

less than nine bucks, maybe five bucks, maybe three bucks, maybe, maybe on the margin, two bucks.

But we're still we're still I'm not disagreeing with anything Allen said, but we're still focusing

on the utilitarian aspects of this. We're saying that it's better because it's going to allow people

to get good rides. There still is opposition, which is why there aren't just one or two

opposition loosens. It's going to eliminate jobs. It's going to be easier to steal personal data.

It's it's just a way of eliminating public transportation. I'm addressing each one of

these and I'm trying to put it in. We're addressing the public. Let me let me let me

folks go on. They're they're wacko. Hang on. Believe believe the driverless vehicles just

a way of eliminating public transport. So what I wrote public transport systems in the form of

buses, trolleys and subways have attained the status of endangered species like mountain

gorillas and black rhinos. I enjoy taking the narrow gauge steam train from a neighboring town

to a small village where there's a dessert smorgasbord. But it takes me four times as much time

to reach the destination than if I drive my car there. The trip on the train is the end,

not the means. This is the reason it is called a museum trip. So what I've said here as long as

public transport options serve the purpose of providing affordable rides to all people who do

not have other better transport options, it should be supported financially on ethical grounds.

If there are better options, which are more flexible, more responsive, more comfortable,

and less expensive, they should be encouraged, even if it means public transport wills on the vine.

So take each one of these issues and try to look at it in the context, the total context.

It's not just we're going to eliminate 40,000 and 50,000 or 100,000 jobs for

bus drivers, for taxi drivers. Yes. And you can say, well, even is the overall value to society

better? Yeah, it might well be better for the overall society, but you still got 100,000 people

or maybe even more people like typists. Remember, there were typists at one time.

And when I was in my first job and I was a telephone operator, I sat in a big room with

lots of other draftsmen, tables and chairs that give you hemorrhoids. And those jobs,

there was a ratio of one architect to three to five drafters. Today, there's one drafter to eight

architects. All of those jobs are history. Are we better off? Well, those people who are drafters,

unless they find another job, they are better off. But we have to look at that problem

and address that problem. It's not going to be it's safer. So therefore, we're going to have all

of these driverless cars riding around because no one will never make that decision because no one

will ever agree that they're going to be safer. You don't have that kind of ability unless you

put all the cars out there and see what happens. You're going to have to make this decision based

on as much information as you have. And that information has to be much larger than just

they may be safer, maybe not safer. Well, I want to jump in here because I, of course,

agree with everything Michael said. And I don't think any ride on mass transit is going to be

taken away. I don't believe it. Especially because the ride that is taken on mass transit today

happens to serve really well the needs of the individual that wants to go that ride.

That ride for that person is in fact extremely inexpensive at the time that that person wants

to go from where that person wants to come from to where that person wants to go.

Beautiful. So to not have that, to have that person not take that,

boom, to compete, to compete against that AVs lose because they can't be that cheap.

The amount, the amount of the mass transit system charged at what $2.75 on New Jersey Transit

can at best come at the really good time that the bus is coming,

come from the really good place that the bus stop is, go to the really good place that the bus stop

is going. Can't really improve that. The problem with the bus is where it provides that given

the demand that is out there. 2% of the trips, 2% of the myriad of places that people want to come

from go to at the time they want to come from at the time they want to go there.

2% half are in the New York metropolitan area. So the rest of the country is like whatever.

And so, hey, those trips will still be served well by mass transit.

Right, go ahead. But what about the trip that isn't coming from where the bus stop is,

that isn't going to the next bus stop, that isn't originating at the time when the bus is going to

be there. There are right now 98% of the trips that are that way. And what have they found?

They found a better way, a car, a vehicle that has a way to go from where they are,

when they want to go to where they are at the time they want to go. And if you look at the way

those things are priced, well, at what the price is something, the price of New Jersey,

$2.75, that's the price, that's the sucker cost, I don't know, 10 bucks on a bus. I don't know.

We figured it out for what it is for paratransit because the accounting of a New Jersey transit

puts all those costs and then we can divide it out and then get the number. I don't even know

well. I mean, I guess I could. And I think if we ask your at your own loot and he'll tell us like

75%, you know, it's so nice. I mean, whatever the number is, it's a bigger number than the $2.75.

Yeah, if you want to know, if you want to know what we two years ago, when we put this, put this

information in the book, all that information, the costs versus the price, yeah, it's much,

much, much higher cost, much higher. And so we're talking about with the with the AV stuff,

we're talking about the AV, this is the cost of it. Now, if the public sector wants to go in and

subsidize the $9 or $7 or whatever it is, because of the length of the trip, and once again, you

know, subsidize it right now, what does it cost to take a paratransit ride in New Jersey? I think

Oh, so, you know, the gap between $2.75 and $9, that's a big gap. Okay, everybody, that comes from

somebody. It comes from taxes. Oh, yeah. Okay, so I guess I paid for it. We did. Okay, great,

whatever. All right, I'm happy to, I'm happy to donate, whatever. But out of all that,

their strategy, New Jersey Transit would like to give rides to everybody. They wouldn't just

like to give 4% of the trips in New Jersey. They'd like to give it to 100%. But they can't.

Why? Because holy man, they're trying to be able to provide the trip for me to go from here,

to do it, you know, get out of my car and do it. I'm not going to pay the taxes for that. Henry

behind me isn't going to pay the tax. And behind that, none of us are going to happen. So that's

why this is valuable. So in fact, it does not destroy mass transit. That can, do your thing,

where you're good. This just looks at all the, and then, but this is the trips that exist.

There's still this hundred million, at least in the center. Then all of a sudden, hey,

they don't have an alternative. And the bus doesn't do it. Because if the bus did it, they'd

be taking it. And now we can go in there and serve them and get the value proposition to society of

that. Wow. Every politician should be, Jesus, we should be up on some sort of pedestal. They

are trying to do. How much prison have we gotten lately? It doesn't work that way. Damn it. We're

not going to get no prison politicians. We're not going to get no prison. If it's a good idea,

politicians take it and use it to get elected. You do it then. I don't want to move along,

Alan, if I can, because, you know, I don't want to move along because in fact, this is really

fundamental. But yes, we brought up the, well, this is all related because a lot of the trips are

non-existent. They're trips that weren't taken and that came up at the Transportation Research

Board annual meeting and you had a great banquet there. And one of the speakers was the U.S.

Department of Transportation Assistant Secretary of Research and Technology nominee,

Saval Oz. I hope I'm pronouncing her name correctly. She had a background at Google,

I understand, helping to launch the AV program there and has been in startups as well.

And she's going to be responsible for pressing ahead with rules to break down the regulatory

barriers for driverless operations. And she said, she, in her remarks, that serving the

trips that aren't being made today are part of the agenda. People don't have access to affordable

mobility options. And of course, that caught your ear.

Well, I guess you know, Fred, that when I found this out this morning that she made those comments

yesterday in her keynote, that my goodness, I mean, my heart went pitter-patter. I mean, to me,

hey, maybe I guess I have a little dimension, whatever, but I do not recall any senior official

at U.S. DOT or even New Jersey DOT or even New Jersey Transit or even anybody, please,

somebody correct me and tell me that has made a statement that part of their objective is to

find ways to provide affordable mobility to this latent demand sector, to people who don't

currently travel. I mean, this is, I guess, what we've been talking about all the whole time here

and what all this, at least Michael and I and so on have been, I guess, trying preaching,

you might as well call it preaching, that in fact there are these, they've been called underserved

communities, but really to say the underserved communities having the opportunity to now travel,

which, you know, for transportation professionals, this is not a good comment because, you know,

one of the, besides safety, the other thing that they're always worried about is congestion.

And my goodness, if we're now going to find ways in which people who don't travel travel,

that means additional volumes on our roads. And so that may be additional congestion.

And my goodness, I mean, we built extra lanes wide to solve congestion. It's really tough to

build a lane. And so my goodness, now you're going to put all these folks who never went anywhere

out there, we're going to build a lane and we're going to have to build extra lanes. Oh, my goodness,

what's that going to do on the environment? Oh, my goodness, the rise in the oceans. Oh,

my goodness. I can't be a good idea. But it can't, it's an idea that is, it can be a good idea.

Because guess what? We provide affordable mobility because affordability, not congestion,

is the reason most of these people aren't traveling. Okay. And they might not even

wish to travel during the congestion time. They may wish to travel. If it was affordable,

they'd be happy to travel when there aren't many people using the roads.

So in fact, they aren't even going to cause extra congestion.

They'll come out there be basically free to the infrastructure.

And if they happen to come out and do this when there is congestion,

maybe they won't mind riding with somebody. Because of course, that doesn't diminish the

quality of the ride that much. Not as much as the surcharges that Uber and Lyft put on happen,

if it happens to be congestion, the gouging that they happen to do to people.

So of course, they haven't been able to go out during when you have surge pricing.

Because they're being gouged. That's important to them because affordability isn't the reason

they're not traveling. There's not congestion. That's affordability.

Therefore, they might not mind riding with me, you Fred, somebody else. That's not an

inconvenience to them. The inconvenience is money. So therefore, guess what?

We're going to be able to provide them mobility without adding congestion. Because they're just

going to go in a vehicle that already is out there with people.

I'm sorry, I don't get that argument. What do you mean you don't get that argument?

One of the reasons that people put out there for not wanting to have driverless cars is that it's

going to cause more congestion. Because more people are going to ride. Let me finish. More

people are going to want to ride because it's going to be cheaper and it's going to be easier.

So more people are going to be riding and so there's going to be more congestion.

And what I said, unlike what you said, it probably will.

Yes, it will. Because the people who are already served by whatever they're doing,

by their own cars, by taxis, by goobers, by all of them, they'll continue doing what they're doing.

We're serving a group of people who are not served right now. If you think about all of the

things that cities and transportation organizations have tried to do over the last maybe 30, 40,

50 years, they have not done anything to serve the people who were trying to serve with driverless

vehicles because they're going to be less costly. Because they're going to be less costly.

Less costly. There will be less costly for a person who has less money to be able to take

a ride in a driverless vehicle than buying a car or driving in a taxi. We've said that. That's a

given. That's the reason we're doing this. If you have these facilities for people to be able to

take these rides, at least in the short term, it probably will lead to more people on the road

getting to places where they need to get to. Not true. Why is it not true?

Because cost is not just dollars. Cost is a perceived content in everybody's brain,

making rational decisions as to whether or not it is going to, what the value proposition is

of going versus the cost of going. Both value and cost are not just krona, not just euros,

not just dollars. They're the quality. They're the discomfort. They're the time. They're the

all the other things that are associated with that. Therefore, the reason why somebody takes an

Uber when Uber does their surge pricing is because, my goodness, even though they tripled,

it costs $40 to go from Princeton Junction to Princeton during reunions, $40. But these are

Princeton graduates. They don't care about $40 for a two mile ride. Who? There's no problem.

If I can intercede for a second, I think what Michael is saying is that the rides that aren't

being taken today will be taken if it's affordable. There may be more people, at least initially,

until there's more ridesharing who are out there on the roads. There will be ridesharing.

There will be some people. They're not only people that aren't. There'll be some people

that currently are out there in their own car. And man, their car is really expensive

and perceived the expensive for the value that they're going to get. And they're going to be

enticed by this low cost. And they're going to then use this vehicle. But guess what? We're

going to put in this vehicle, not one person. We're going to put two. And there'll be the

father who wants to send the child to soccer practice that's going to go to soccer practice

and then come home. Instead, they're going to put that child in this vehicle to go get them.

And maybe even with a child, they might be going with a second child. My argument is that the

propensity of ridesharing is faster, therefore reducing, actually reducing the congestion on

there. And all those that say, oh no, it's going to cost congestion, prove it to me that in fact,

that's not true. Okay, you're making contention and I claim you're an idiot. Sorry. I mean,

I won't say that to them. I mean, we're just having what you're saying to me. Oh, did I say

that? No, no, no, Michael, I wouldn't call you. I think Michael. That may be true, Alan, but it

may take time for all of that to develop. Exactly. And guess what? Yes, one in the beginning. In fact,

I might be right. And you're wrong. And guess what congestion will go down in the beginning. All

right. You have not proven to me that any congestion goes up in the beginning. I challenge

you. What we have done over the course of the last 50 years, and New York's a very good example

of this, New York City. No, no, no, don't use New York because New York City is a unique case. And

I just don't, I want to deal with the rest of the mission. I'm going to be here in Jersey. I'm going

to say, congestion now has been reduced. The number of vehicles coming into Manhattan,

Stockholm, Gothenburg, London, all of those, the number of vehicles has been reduced. What

happened in London is a great example. The number of people who are paying the fee is, of course,

it's reduced, but the number of ubers and number of whatever else lifts that have come into London

has greatly increased the number of vehicles and has caused more transportation. If we focus, again,

if we focus the argument against... It's not true. Listen to me, Alan. I'm saying the argument against,

people use the argument against driverless vehicles as they will increase the demand for cars and

therefore increase congestion. We have to address that. Now, you say that anyone who says that

is an idiot. Well, I'm not going to go that far. I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I've been funny

here. Okay, I'm sorry. My argument is maybe they're right, but maybe they're right. But the people

who are now being able to go onto the roads who are causing maybe more congestion are people who

needed to get to where they wanted to go before, but they couldn't get there because of your laws

and your regulations and your way of doing things prevented them from having a ride to

where they wanted to go. Now, they've got equality. Now, you should say, what should you say to society?

Now, let's deal with that problem. If that's the reason why these people couldn't have a ride before,

now they've got a ride, maybe we should start thinking about where we put things. Maybe we

should be better at planning rather than trying to say, oh no, we have to restrict the number of

people on the roads in order to restrict investment. I'm retiring. I quit. He's an engineer. I'm an

open planner. Yeah, okay. But you know, guys like him have been arguing this for, you know, hey,

if you allow me to tell people where to live and how to live, then sure, I'll put them all in a

tire here, all in a tire here. We'll go between two places. We'll build one of these cities that

is how we've been talking about a linear city. Well, I'm a choo-choo.

Guess what you get? You get Levittowns out of that. You get the Levittowns. You get the

situations that it gives us here in Princeton. You get to live in a house that used to be on

Nassau Street that they moved here, okay, so that we could have a little bit more space. I mean,

who, I'll have such great Fred, you'll be in such good shape. Michael, you'll be in such good shape.

Just give me, let me rule. I guess the point is that either way, whether it's correct or incorrect,

that there would be more congestion. What you're doing? No, I don't know. Some people can claim that

and I'll argue, I'll debate the other side. We don't know until we know that's the point.

We don't know until we know, but is that any excuse for denying people the right

to be able to have mobility? And obviously, it's not. I agree with that one. It's not. I agree

with that one. I think everybody should have the right, the rich people that have been out there

using the road. But if you look at it, I mean, the reason we got the extra lanes is so that

they could go faster, it wasn't a comedy. And of course, heck, my goodness, you know,

you can't use it. I've got it. So yes, I understand that that's, we have no, I don't

Michael absolutely agree with that. That's okay. I mean, if you, I actually had a student do a

senior thesis in which we did, we did a, we put in there, you had to have chips. We allocated

each individual with a right of capacity. That was a, the Marxist theory of the Marxist-Cornhouser

theory of that one, that everybody had the capacity was to be uniformly distributed over society.

And we, we created a market in which this would be your asset of capacity. You could either use it

or sell it. Okay. And so, and if you wanted that you had it, but it didn't allow you to go at any,

every time in any time. So if you wanted, if you, if you wanted to go at another time, you had to

buy it. And so maybe, maybe Michael owned it. So here, Michael, here's your, that asset. I want to,

because I want to go then. Okay. So I have to give you something in return. So you're, what are you

going to ask me for? Maybe I'll just give you a little kiss right here. Don't give me a, don't give

me a dummy. Yeah. Yeah. In fact, in fact, if this is, if this is a public asset to society,

it should be distributed to the individuals. And if you want this, if I want that, then I should

offer a price to him for it. And then if I bid more than he asks, because he doesn't want it,

because he's not going there. Holy heck, it doesn't have a value to me, but it has value to him,

value. I should be able to buy it. So we should be able to establish an exchange

so that we market the capacity. Okay. And that everyone has it. So even a poor person,

they have this, that Michael really wants to go at this time. Oh, Michael, you're going to have to

pay me a lot. Okay. Oh, go ahead. Give me the money. No, no, I get money for that. Okay. And he

doesn't care about the money because, because he prefers this. I care about the money and I don't

care about this. This is an opportunity. The same thing exists here. The same thing exists here.

In other words, what we look at, we look at the price of this, of the technology to give

the cost of the technology to grab a ride is affordable.

In peak times, the way that we're going to be able to operate there is because we can't put

another vehicle out there. Somebody who wants to hop on that vehicle and go at the, is going to have

to ride with somebody because we're only going to charge them that same amount. And we don't get

to put another vehicle out there. And so they better, if the money is the only thing they care

about, then they're not going to care about riding with Michael. And they'll take it. And

therefore we'll do this with rideshare. We're not increasing capacity. Okay. But who works out there

saying, ooh, nobody rideshares. Well, I think that I only have one vehicle out here and three people

want it. And so therefore, hey, poof, I'm going to put this out there and I'm going to, I'm going to

see how high you bid. To put it, to put a ribbon on it, I guess the thing is that it was refreshing

to hear that this nominee at the Transportation Department, who had research and technology,

Saval Oz, the sister, by the way, of Dr. Oz, who's heading Medicare and Medicaid.

She is the sister, yes. She's got some terrific qualifications with Google and startups,

et cetera, working in this field. She is the nominated chief scientist of the US Department

of Transportation. And I must admit that this morning when I found out that I wasn't able to

be at her talk, as I had to come back here after the banquet Tuesday night, but when I heard that

she made that statement, it made me very happy. That's the ribbon we wanted to put on it.

Well, I mean, I think this is the central, this is the reason why I'm in this is because the

opportunity here is that is to provide mobility to people who really need a ride and the people

who really need to ride tend to be in this latent demand group that has been so underserved by the

systems that we have. And even the new, you know, mass transit systems, what do they serve?

They're trying to serve, you know, rich commuters who want to live out here. I don't even want to

go through all that stuff. Okay, you look at the purple line and you say to yourself, my goodness,

this is not that well, but this is coming from at the top. And so if that is going to be part of

the public policy of the national transportation government, then man, I'm all in the help.

You know, I just, my goodness, I was thinking after coming up in whatever, although we did have a

very good meeting with a certain city in TRB and I think, you know, had nothing but

the positive vibes associated with this one is this is, this is, this is a real alignment of

the stars to have this opportunity. And now maybe I'm not reading it right. Maybe I, you know, I

don't know, I didn't have anything to drink this morning for breakfast that I, thank you. No, I

don't, I had coffee. So, you know, or maybe my dementia is catching up to me, but whatever.

Well, it does, it does seem like there's a lot to look forward to for this year, especially when,

you know, if the DOT is, is on board with all of this. I'm all here. I think we, Michael and I,

you, Fred, we are all, if, if that is part of the national DOT agenda on this AVs, I'm all for it.

If the agenda is, is safety, then, you know, I don't know. I'm all, I wanted to be safer. I,

I don't drive anymore. I went from Princeton to DC and back being driven. Okay.

I can verify that.

And he was sitting next and it did it better than I do it. Okay. I, I, I'm personally convinced

in my personal decision and whatever my personal thing is, is that darn it. I know I'm going to

sit there and pay attention and I'm going to sit there and be ready to whatever. And I'm not ready

to, you know, be a jerk and jump in a bag and sleep when it won't let me, but darn it.

It, at night, I mean, it sees better than I can see.

And it sees 360. And we've already did the business about how long it takes me to see 360.

And it doesn't give her take 30 times a second. I can't process things up here 30 times a second.

Right. And in times when it's not completely crazy out there.

Now, if it's completely crazy out there, then, then I'm not going to go.

And if there's snow, I'm not going to go. But even if I'm in Buffalo,

it only snows an inch or more 28 days a year. I think it's the number. Look it up and chat,

GP poop. Okay. What about the other 330 days a year when it doesn't?

And so it doesn't have to do it for me all the time.

And boy, if it doesn't, you know, 330 over 365 is a big percent.

I'm sorry, 365.25. Oh, I've cheated a little bit. Okay. That's a big number.

And why shouldn't I take advantage of it? Because as far as I'm concerned,

it does it better than I do it.

Okay. So I'm a fan boy. Sorry. Personal fan boy.

Well, Michael, we want to thank you once again for being with us in person in Princeton.

My pleasure. Yep. Nice day, too.

And you can find more about all of all of the work Michael does at michaelelsenna.com.

Maybe he can tell us how to get that train ride to the Desert Smorgasbord.

I'll take you pay for the pay for the desserts, too.

Wonderful. Well, you can find us at smartdrivingcar.com.

Find my tech reports at textination.com.

Thank you again for watching or listening and please stay safe.

Thank you, everybody, and have a good week. And we'll put out a smart driving car.

Smart Driving Cars episode 405: Addressing the Opposition to Driverless Riding & more

Waymo

Zoox

About this episode

Original notes