4 ms·

Not to put down the hard work these people do, but I really think slowing traffic is backwards thinking. Its the same advice that tells us to turn off electrica

Not to put down the hard work these people do, but I really think slowing traffic is backwards thinking. Its the same advice that tells us to turn off electrical appliances to save the environment. That kind of thinking is really about scaling back technological advances. To save something. Really technology should be employed to solve the problem. Automated cars will solve the problem being reported here. New energy research will solve the power problem. Why do we need to take civilization back 50 years to get a benefit?

gjm11 11y ago
We don't have automated cars yet. We don't have (e.g.) fusion power yet. Why should the possibility of improvements in the future stop us doing things that benefit us overall now? And ... where does "taking civilization back 50 years" come into this? Isn't that a ridiculously overblown way to describe what's actually a proposal to convert a 4-lane road to a 3-lane road plus bike lane and actually enforce the existing speed limit?
melling 11y ago
"Drivers seldom heed the 25 mph speed limit, and the result is that Livingston has a higher rate of pedestrian crashes than other roads in the same county." Do you think automated cars will violate the speed limit?
- nextweek2 11y ago
  The old human rules shouldn't apply to robots, they obey programmed rules rather than humans which are real wildcards. The 25mph speed limit is a statistical number chosen based on accident numbers with human drivers. A robot might not need to stop at a traffic light for example. Their perception, reaction and concentration is going to be far greater than any human.
everyone 11y ago
Why do you think everyone driving cars and using a lot of electricity is progressive? I think it would make more sense to use metrics like happiness, health, education standard etc. of the population and whatever policies increase those should be deemed progressive. The prevalence of cars for example, I would argue is a regression for society. They emit greenhouse gases, fill our air with toxins and carcinogens, encourage many diseases through lack of exercise, are the number one cause of violent death, and their popularity has changed the urban fabric into an environment that is not fit for humans and for human societies to grow.
- everyone 11y ago
  Perhaps you simply think that all the changes that have happened since 1965 are progress. Well, in that time the wealth gap between the rich and the poor has increased, greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise, contamination of soil, over-irrigation, flogging the land, overfishing etc. have all increased and many other non-renewable resources have been consumed or otherwise destroyed.
- tomjen3 11y ago
  My car brings me happiness. Human societies are filled with people, who tends to make me unhappy.
majormajor 11y ago
Will automated cars solve the problem? Or will automated cars make people more willing to put up with long commutes since it's then a passive activity and they can do something else in the meantime, making traffic no better and causing a net increase in energy usage? Seems like it could go either way—people often talk about how they'd rather sit 50 minutes on a train than do 30 minutes driving for that same reason, but if it becomes 50 minutes with everyone in their own car then we're worse off.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  These are certainly fair questions to ask. On the other hand, it seems likely that the infrastructure and automation of a new generation of vehicles might end up much more efficient than what we have today. Better co-ordination between vehicles and response to changing conditions is likely to improve the overall efficiency of the system. Reducing the risk of accidents and the resulting congestion and delays could be a big win for efficiency as well. It seems conceivable that these sorts of effects could more than compensate for, say, the environmental cost of doubling average commute distances, making the overall change a net benefit even with some increase in commuting range. People are still going to want to keep commutes within a limit they personally find tolerable anyway, so there is always going to be some bound on how much extra distance gets covered as a result of automation making commutes more traveller-friendly. Of course there are also other benefits from things like reducing accidents, but I'm just considering the efficiency of the transport system and its likely environmental impact here.
  - Steltek 11y ago
    How much more efficient? Aren't most of the promises of automated cars predicated on having dedicated highways, forbidding hands-on driving? Is that ever likely to happen inside of a decade? And once we do get there, is the earned capacity from full automation going to equal other options, in both cost and efficiency, that we could be pursuing now? I don't think it's reasonable to block real progress with illusory claims that in a decade or two, cars may finally stop killing people and ruining the environment.
Steltek 11y ago
"To save something"? Like people's lives? If you're under 35 in the US, you are more likely to die from a car collision than anything else. If you're under 14, you're probably just better off playing with the stuff under the kitchen sink. And tell me about this amazing new energy research that will be cheaper than gasoline and better for the environment. I must have missed that TED Talk. You're offering solutions that don't exist yet in order to block the solutions that do.
- hugh4 11y ago
  If you want to bump up the number of traffic fatalities, encouraging cycling is a pretty good way to do it. Every major injury I've ever had has come from cycling and before you blame cars -- none involved a collision with a car.
  - Steltek 11y ago
    Your personal anecdotes and opinions do not trump national safety data. Statistics say bikes are safer than cars. Further, common sense says bike crashes involve far smaller amounts of kinetic energy. Lastly, you make several assumptions that education, enforcement, culture, and bike infrastructure would not change with a persistent focus on increasing active transportation.

gjm11 11y ago

We don't have automated cars yet. We don't have (e.g.) fusion power yet. Why should the possibility of improvements in the future stop us doing things that benefit us overall now? And ... where does "taking civilization back 50 years" come into this? Isn't that a ridiculously overblown way to describe what's actually a proposal to convert a 4-lane road to a 3-lane road plus bike lane and actually enforce the existing speed limit?

melling 11y ago

"Drivers seldom heed the 25 mph speed limit, and the result is that Livingston has a higher rate of pedestrian crashes than other roads in the same county." Do you think automated cars will violate the speed limit?

nextweek2 11y ago
The old human rules shouldn't apply to robots, they obey programmed rules rather than humans which are real wildcards. The 25mph speed limit is a statistical number chosen based on accident numbers with human drivers. A robot might not need to stop at a traffic light for example. Their perception, reaction and concentration is going to be far greater than any human.

everyone 11y ago

Why do you think everyone driving cars and using a lot of electricity is progressive? I think it would make more sense to use metrics like happiness, health, education standard etc. of the population and whatever policies increase those should be deemed progressive. The prevalence of cars for example, I would argue is a regression for society. They emit greenhouse gases, fill our air with toxins and carcinogens, encourage many diseases through lack of exercise, are the number one cause of violent death, and their popularity has changed the urban fabric into an environment that is not fit for humans and for human societies to grow.

everyone 11y ago
Perhaps you simply think that all the changes that have happened since 1965 are progress. Well, in that time the wealth gap between the rich and the poor has increased, greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise, contamination of soil, over-irrigation, flogging the land, overfishing etc. have all increased and many other non-renewable resources have been consumed or otherwise destroyed.
tomjen3 11y ago
My car brings me happiness. Human societies are filled with people, who tends to make me unhappy.

majormajor 11y ago

Will automated cars solve the problem? Or will automated cars make people more willing to put up with long commutes since it's then a passive activity and they can do something else in the meantime, making traffic no better and causing a net increase in energy usage? Seems like it could go either way—people often talk about how they'd rather sit 50 minutes on a train than do 30 minutes driving for that same reason, but if it becomes 50 minutes with everyone in their own car then we're worse off.

Silhouette 11y ago
These are certainly fair questions to ask. On the other hand, it seems likely that the infrastructure and automation of a new generation of vehicles might end up much more efficient than what we have today. Better co-ordination between vehicles and response to changing conditions is likely to improve the overall efficiency of the system. Reducing the risk of accidents and the resulting congestion and delays could be a big win for efficiency as well. It seems conceivable that these sorts of effects could more than compensate for, say, the environmental cost of doubling average commute distances, making the overall change a net benefit even with some increase in commuting range. People are still going to want to keep commutes within a limit they personally find tolerable anyway, so there is always going to be some bound on how much extra distance gets covered as a result of automation making commutes more traveller-friendly. Of course there are also other benefits from things like reducing accidents, but I'm just considering the efficiency of the transport system and its likely environmental impact here.
- Steltek 11y ago
  How much more efficient? Aren't most of the promises of automated cars predicated on having dedicated highways, forbidding hands-on driving? Is that ever likely to happen inside of a decade? And once we do get there, is the earned capacity from full automation going to equal other options, in both cost and efficiency, that we could be pursuing now? I don't think it's reasonable to block real progress with illusory claims that in a decade or two, cars may finally stop killing people and ruining the environment.

Steltek 11y ago

"To save something"? Like people's lives? If you're under 35 in the US, you are more likely to die from a car collision than anything else. If you're under 14, you're probably just better off playing with the stuff under the kitchen sink. And tell me about this amazing new energy research that will be cheaper than gasoline and better for the environment. I must have missed that TED Talk. You're offering solutions that don't exist yet in order to block the solutions that do.

hugh4 11y ago
If you want to bump up the number of traffic fatalities, encouraging cycling is a pretty good way to do it. Every major injury I've ever had has come from cycling and before you blame cars -- none involved a collision with a car.
- Steltek 11y ago
  Your personal anecdotes and opinions do not trump national safety data. Statistics say bikes are safer than cars. Further, common sense says bike crashes involve far smaller amounts of kinetic energy. Lastly, you make several assumptions that education, enforcement, culture, and bike infrastructure would not change with a persistent focus on increasing active transportation.