5 ms·

It is all gut. No data. No logic. Cars == freedom. Freedom == control Freedom as in own Geographic control. When. Where and how we get places with that freed

It is all gut. No data. No logic. Cars == freedom. Freedom == control Freedom as in own Geographic control. When. Where and how we get places with that freedom. We control our freedom. Before furnaces we burned wood. Furnaces helped. We accepted them. But cars are different. An extension and expression of our freedom. Out health. Cars have been our best (& worst sometimes) friend as we used our freedoms. There is no substitute for this machine that affords is freedom control. Risking the loss Is where my gut says people will fight this.

nickez 10y ago
> Cars == freedom That is a very American statement. For me it is freedom not to have a car.
- losteverything 10y ago
  True. You can not understand the American family if you do not understand the car of the american family.
- 3chelon 10y ago
  I agree fully. I have a car, but I commute on the train because I value being able to multitask. I spent half a lifetime stuck in traffic and hated every minute of it. The future cannot come soon enough for me.
  - brokenmachine 10y ago
    I have a car but commute to work by bicycle. On wet days I drive, but I find sitting in traffic worse than pulling teeth, so avoid it as much as I can. I enjoy driving (not in traffic), but autonomous cars would hopefully make my bicycle commute safer.
- cr0sh 10y ago
  While I understand this intellectually (that is, I know that this is an American-centric thing, and that other societies in the world have a different view), I am curious how this view would be justified? One could "reducto-ad-absurdum" the statement, and say "To be bedridden and unable to walk is to be free!" - which would obviously be a very absurd statement to make. In America, part of the reason we feel this way is because of our vast travel distances compared to other areas of the world; it isn't unknown for people to commute to work over 50 miles (80 km) one way. Or to travel that far to go shopping. Travelling to another state could easily be hundreds of miles and hours of travel. It would comparable to driving between countries in Europe (assuming a similar "interstate" freeway system). We want that freedom so that we can live where we want to live, shop where we want to shop, play where we want to play, and work where we want to work - and not have that dictated to us based on economic situation, geographic location, etc. If we want to live in the slums, and commute to the "rich part of town" to work (or vice-versa!) - even if the distance is fairly large - we want that kind of choice. One could argue about other forms of transportation - but those come with costs, and in the US we don't have great public transportation - and ultimately, you are chained to the decisions and whims of the transportation and other people using it; you can't decide where and when to go, and when to stop, or when to be picked up... So I guess I'm trying to understand the statement "it is freedom not to have a car"? How is it freedom not to have faster, longer distance personal transport? I can understand economic freedom (it's expensive to own a car - and even more so if you have to pay to store or park it), and I can understand the licensing argument - but in general, being limited to the alternative options seems to me to be less freedom, not more. I'm obviously missing something... /also - I like to go off-road - 4-wheelin' in the dirt and mud - can't do that without a vehicle (and currently, you can't do it with anything not IC powered that is available to consumers at a decent price - and I don't know if an autonomous ORV would be fun or not - but I can't wait for 4wd electrics that can be lifted and modded with big 44" mudders).
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    >So I guess I'm trying to understand the statement "it is freedom not to have a car"? It's the freedom to be able to get around without having to babysit a tonne of metal, and then find somewhere to put it when you get near where you're going, and then have to go back for it later. >How is it freedom not to have faster, longer distance personal transport? Decent public transport is faster and much more comfortable over long distances.
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      > Decent public transport is faster and much more comfortable over long distances. Significantly! You can stand up and walk the whole length of a train if you desire without having to stop. There's food and drink brought right to your seat, and hot food if you walk to the buffet car or are in first class. In the UK, if you book a non-Advance ticket, you can get out of the train, leave the station, go wherever you like, and get on any later train. On certain routes, you can even get on the train one evening, have dinner, go to sleep, and wake up the next morning pulling into your destination with breakfast waiting for you. Train travel can be just as flexible as car travel over long distances, so long as the infrastructure exists and gets investment.
      - cr0sh 10y ago
        > Train travel can be just as flexible as car travel over long distances, so long as the infrastructure exists and gets investment. That's debatable. It can be comfortable and convenient, though I've never experienced it since we don't have much in the way of a train system for passenger rail here anymore. But I can see the allure. However, with a car, you can go anywhere you want on a whim. Want to get off the highway and take a random route up through the mountains to visit a random lake? No problem. Want to pop thru a small town via a connector road to a different freeway? Again not a problem. With public transportation or rail, you are limited to where the system runs, and if you want to get off somewhere along the way that doesn't have a station (for instance - just to randomly take in a scene) - well, you can't. Then again, one can't walk the length of a car, or get food and drink brought to your seat, or sleep in a comfortable bed overnight, etc. Also - most people don't travel super-long distances here by car (some do, many don't) - instead, if they can afford it, they take a plane. Airlines have effectively become our train system, for the good and bad it has to offer.
- ctdonath 10y ago
  Understood; different people/cultures hold different axioms for "freedom". This often confuses people. As an old-values American, self-sufficiency is paramount: freedom is the ability to do what/when I want, with practically no reliance on others; to rely on others (say, for transportation) requires their ability/consent, and should that be denied for any reason then my freedom is limited without my choice. That includes the ability to travel 1000 miles on a moment's notice (hindered only by energy storage limits). While I understand the "freedom" of not having to own & maintain things ("just get on the train! not beholden to servicing a vehicle"), it is those things that extend my abilities. Living out of a backpack, renting what I need when I want it, is certainly desirable - but relies heavily on the consent & capability of others to provide on request.
  - BorgHunter 10y ago
    Curiously, though, travel by car requires one to rely on others just as much as any other form of transportation. It's just that the reliance is hidden away from you. Take the road that goes past/to your residence. Who built it? Who repairs the potholes? If you live in an area with cold winters, who plows and salts the road when it snows? Then you have to multiply that by every municipality/county/state on your journey. You quickly find that maintaining the road network involves quite a large number of people. It's more of a sunk cost than one that recurs for every journey, yes, but it seems fallacious to say that car travel is independent of the effort of others. That is only an illusion. You can repeat this exercise for the supply chain needed to get fuel to your car, too. There's an entire hidden network of people enabling car travel in the first place. And that isn't a bad thing; this interconnectedness in the economy is what allows us to specialize and find economies of scale and spend time writing software instead of everyone spending their days growing their own food just to survive.
justin66 10y ago
> Risking the loss Is where my gut says people will fight this. I imagine there will be a fight, but it will be completed a lot quicker than people anticipate. For seniors and disabled people unable to safely operate a motor vehicle, the benefits of self-driving vehicles are huge. Those people care about their freedom as well, and they're well represented.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  I think insurance premiums will resolve this fight very quickly. Freedom to pay less for a car trumps freedom to drive the car yourself.
maverick_iceman 10y ago
I'm very much of a freedom loving libertarian but this comment comes across as incredibly foolish to me. One should have the freedom to choose self driving car or not. Personally, I can't wait to have one.
- losteverything 10y ago
  It was my opinion on why driverless cars will not be accepted.

nickez 10y ago

> Cars == freedom That is a very American statement. For me it is freedom not to have a car.

losteverything 10y ago
True. You can not understand the American family if you do not understand the car of the american family.
3chelon 10y ago
I agree fully. I have a car, but I commute on the train because I value being able to multitask. I spent half a lifetime stuck in traffic and hated every minute of it. The future cannot come soon enough for me.
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  I have a car but commute to work by bicycle. On wet days I drive, but I find sitting in traffic worse than pulling teeth, so avoid it as much as I can. I enjoy driving (not in traffic), but autonomous cars would hopefully make my bicycle commute safer.
cr0sh 10y ago
While I understand this intellectually (that is, I know that this is an American-centric thing, and that other societies in the world have a different view), I am curious how this view would be justified? One could "reducto-ad-absurdum" the statement, and say "To be bedridden and unable to walk is to be free!" - which would obviously be a very absurd statement to make. In America, part of the reason we feel this way is because of our vast travel distances compared to other areas of the world; it isn't unknown for people to commute to work over 50 miles (80 km) one way. Or to travel that far to go shopping. Travelling to another state could easily be hundreds of miles and hours of travel. It would comparable to driving between countries in Europe (assuming a similar "interstate" freeway system). We want that freedom so that we can live where we want to live, shop where we want to shop, play where we want to play, and work where we want to work - and not have that dictated to us based on economic situation, geographic location, etc. If we want to live in the slums, and commute to the "rich part of town" to work (or vice-versa!) - even if the distance is fairly large - we want that kind of choice. One could argue about other forms of transportation - but those come with costs, and in the US we don't have great public transportation - and ultimately, you are chained to the decisions and whims of the transportation and other people using it; you can't decide where and when to go, and when to stop, or when to be picked up... So I guess I'm trying to understand the statement "it is freedom not to have a car"? How is it freedom not to have faster, longer distance personal transport? I can understand economic freedom (it's expensive to own a car - and even more so if you have to pay to store or park it), and I can understand the licensing argument - but in general, being limited to the alternative options seems to me to be less freedom, not more. I'm obviously missing something... /also - I like to go off-road - 4-wheelin' in the dirt and mud - can't do that without a vehicle (and currently, you can't do it with anything not IC powered that is available to consumers at a decent price - and I don't know if an autonomous ORV would be fun or not - but I can't wait for 4wd electrics that can be lifted and modded with big 44" mudders).
- aninhumer 10y ago
  >So I guess I'm trying to understand the statement "it is freedom not to have a car"? It's the freedom to be able to get around without having to babysit a tonne of metal, and then find somewhere to put it when you get near where you're going, and then have to go back for it later. >How is it freedom not to have faster, longer distance personal transport? Decent public transport is faster and much more comfortable over long distances.
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    > Decent public transport is faster and much more comfortable over long distances. Significantly! You can stand up and walk the whole length of a train if you desire without having to stop. There's food and drink brought right to your seat, and hot food if you walk to the buffet car or are in first class. In the UK, if you book a non-Advance ticket, you can get out of the train, leave the station, go wherever you like, and get on any later train. On certain routes, you can even get on the train one evening, have dinner, go to sleep, and wake up the next morning pulling into your destination with breakfast waiting for you. Train travel can be just as flexible as car travel over long distances, so long as the infrastructure exists and gets investment.
    - cr0sh 10y ago
      > Train travel can be just as flexible as car travel over long distances, so long as the infrastructure exists and gets investment. That's debatable. It can be comfortable and convenient, though I've never experienced it since we don't have much in the way of a train system for passenger rail here anymore. But I can see the allure. However, with a car, you can go anywhere you want on a whim. Want to get off the highway and take a random route up through the mountains to visit a random lake? No problem. Want to pop thru a small town via a connector road to a different freeway? Again not a problem. With public transportation or rail, you are limited to where the system runs, and if you want to get off somewhere along the way that doesn't have a station (for instance - just to randomly take in a scene) - well, you can't. Then again, one can't walk the length of a car, or get food and drink brought to your seat, or sleep in a comfortable bed overnight, etc. Also - most people don't travel super-long distances here by car (some do, many don't) - instead, if they can afford it, they take a plane. Airlines have effectively become our train system, for the good and bad it has to offer.
ctdonath 10y ago
Understood; different people/cultures hold different axioms for "freedom". This often confuses people. As an old-values American, self-sufficiency is paramount: freedom is the ability to do what/when I want, with practically no reliance on others; to rely on others (say, for transportation) requires their ability/consent, and should that be denied for any reason then my freedom is limited without my choice. That includes the ability to travel 1000 miles on a moment's notice (hindered only by energy storage limits). While I understand the "freedom" of not having to own & maintain things ("just get on the train! not beholden to servicing a vehicle"), it is those things that extend my abilities. Living out of a backpack, renting what I need when I want it, is certainly desirable - but relies heavily on the consent & capability of others to provide on request.
- BorgHunter 10y ago
  Curiously, though, travel by car requires one to rely on others just as much as any other form of transportation. It's just that the reliance is hidden away from you. Take the road that goes past/to your residence. Who built it? Who repairs the potholes? If you live in an area with cold winters, who plows and salts the road when it snows? Then you have to multiply that by every municipality/county/state on your journey. You quickly find that maintaining the road network involves quite a large number of people. It's more of a sunk cost than one that recurs for every journey, yes, but it seems fallacious to say that car travel is independent of the effort of others. That is only an illusion. You can repeat this exercise for the supply chain needed to get fuel to your car, too. There's an entire hidden network of people enabling car travel in the first place. And that isn't a bad thing; this interconnectedness in the economy is what allows us to specialize and find economies of scale and spend time writing software instead of everyone spending their days growing their own food just to survive.

justin66 10y ago

> Risking the loss Is where my gut says people will fight this. I imagine there will be a fight, but it will be completed a lot quicker than people anticipate. For seniors and disabled people unable to safely operate a motor vehicle, the benefits of self-driving vehicles are huge. Those people care about their freedom as well, and they're well represented.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
I think insurance premiums will resolve this fight very quickly. Freedom to pay less for a car trumps freedom to drive the car yourself.

maverick_iceman 10y ago

I'm very much of a freedom loving libertarian but this comment comes across as incredibly foolish to me. One should have the freedom to choose self driving car or not. Personally, I can't wait to have one.

losteverything 10y ago
It was my opinion on why driverless cars will not be accepted.