9 ms·

I'm mostly tired of reading all the self-driving hype by now- I know it's coming and its gonna be great. But I had never thought about the ramifications for pol

I'm mostly tired of reading all the self-driving hype by now- I know it's coming and its gonna be great. But I had never thought about the ramifications for police forces before! I think a decent amount of government revenue will be lost and not as many officers required nationwide. Most people's only crimes end up being driving-related. And many arrests start with being pulled over too- dui's, drug possession, outstanding warrant etc.

xapata 10y ago
Many people don't realize how much of government has been crafted to support the automobile industry, effectively a subsidy. The obvious one is building roads, but we should also consider how laws have taken rights away from pedestrians and pedestrian-friendly builders. For example, many cities won't allow a new building without a parking lot moat.
- XorNot 10y ago
  That's because the results of not doing this are pretty reliably dreadful on surrounding traffic. This is just sensible town-planning.
  - barrkel 10y ago
    That's not true. The parking lot moats discourage density and make walking a real chore. The lack of density makes public transport less economical. Allocating enormous amounts of space to parking virtually guarantees that more people will drive.
    - freehunter 10y ago
      Chicken and egg. You can't have one store decide to not have a parking lot, because no one would go there. You could require all stores to be densely packed with no parking lots, but you can't force existing businesses to move or rip out their parking lots, so that would fail too. Believe it or not, we actually have businesses that are so dense that walking between them not only makes sense, it's the only way to get around. They're called "shopping malls" and everyone hates them.
      - barrkel 10y ago
        Shopping malls aren't disliked because they're dense - though the crowds don't help. Shopping malls are artificially constructed and specifically designed for discomfort, to force people to shop. Public seating is kept to a minimum, and benches are designed without backs, or otherwise to be uncomfortable, so people can't rest for free. Every available viewpoint is covered with shopping opportunities, in a consumerist assault on the senses. However much inspiration malls had from European town centres, commercial imperatives altered the construct fundamentally since.
      - xapata 10y ago
        > Chicken and egg. Luckily, there are some developers with deep enough pockets that they can plan an entire district. It's been wonderful for revitalizing many blighted neighborhoods.
- marcc 10y ago
  I think we should start removing those regulations that require large parking lots for new construction. It's a little forward-thinking, but if the next shopping center/strip mall/whatever was built only with pickup/dropoff spots and not park-while-you-shop spots, that would both encourage people to ride share today and also build for the future.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    It would most likely result in people simply avoiding the next shopping center/strip mall/whatever because it's such a hassle to go there. Just as I rarely go to downtown areas today where parking is a hassle.
    - JBReefer 10y ago
      Ah yes, this of course is why urban cores nationwide are so cheap and empty! Honestly though, this is your experience and nearly decade of car-hostile planning has paid dividends in cities across the country, even if it doesn't work for all use cases. The suburbs and car-centered world only work in a single use case.
    - calvano915 10y ago
      Las Vegas casinos have started charging for parking after decades of being known for not doing so. This occurred after the newest large projects were built without large/any parking to accommodate drivers visiting those projects. I cannot speak for the impacts on locals visiting the Strip as this is still a new thing, but I do know that: - The casinos are making an additional $7+/day from every vehicle parking on their properties (those who haven't found a way to get free parking, including being on a higher than lowest gaming tier). - MGM Resorts started the trend, and within months Wynn and Caesars followed suit. The increased revenue in MGM's case was to fund an additional paid parking garage. - All future projects will probably follow suit and limit the amount of spaces. Throughout all of this, the only big improvement in public transit discussed has been some kind of rail option going down the Strip in the future. Otherwise, it seems to be that locals will pay more by either paying to park or using ride hailing/taxis. In other words, not necessarily moving us forward in transit efficiency and additional revenue to the benefit of a few companies.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  It might be considered a sort-of subsidy, but ultimately, the people who own land fronting on a road are the main beneficiaries. I also cannot frame a disparity in mass as "taking away rights." It only gets worse if this is identity politics. Don't get me wrong - people commuting alone in a car an hour or two a day is simply obscene. The article does a great job of identifying that the experiment in making all people drivers has failed, though. As long as I live, I'll never understand how people can be so blase about such high risk behavior.
  - xapata 10y ago
    > identity politics I don't know what you mean by that. > cannot frame disparity in mass as "taking away rights" I'm guessing you're referring to the difference in the mass of an automobile and a person. Right-of-way laws are only one of the policies that I'm referring to, but that in particular was/is in fact taking away rights. Pedestrians had the right to cross the street at any place or time until automobile manufacturers ran marketing campaigns (such as inventing the term "Jay walking") and lobbied to change laws. Of course there should be some compromise, to promote safety and convenience, but perhaps we erred too much on the side of the automobile.
    - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
      Of course I mean disparity in mass :) "Walkability" is inherently political ( goes to land use ) , and it's strongly correlated at least with people's identity. Cars have been about for 100 years, but it's only recently that there's been any writing to the effect of there being conflict. I think the basic mindset of drivers is a lot the problem, but it should be clear that as a pedestrian, you cannot trust car drivers to be very aware. There's only so much gain to be had there with things like rule changes. I see this as an extension of "everything is a college campus" but maybe that's just me.
      - xapata 10y ago
        > only recently Perhaps you should do a more thorough literature review. The NYT reported, "Nation roused against motor killings" in 1924. http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-machines/ http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-machines/
edblarney 10y ago
Government workers unions will not allow anyone to be laid off. Since the dawn of modern governance at about the turn of the last century, governments everywhere have been going in one direction: expansion. So they'll find other things for cops to do :) On day, about 2030, a Scandinavian country will 'ban human driving' citing safety risks. Then California, and NYC. In 2070, you'll sneak your grandchildren into an old Buick in and take them for a spin around some old parking lot - and your daughter in law will freak right out and get seriously pissed at you, threatening to call the police. 'Those crazy old people who actually think they can drive' ...
tyingq 10y ago
Just saw a news story on TV yesterday saying that US DUI arrests are down significantly, mostly due to services like Uber and Lyft.

xapata 10y ago

Many people don't realize how much of government has been crafted to support the automobile industry, effectively a subsidy. The obvious one is building roads, but we should also consider how laws have taken rights away from pedestrians and pedestrian-friendly builders. For example, many cities won't allow a new building without a parking lot moat.

XorNot 10y ago
That's because the results of not doing this are pretty reliably dreadful on surrounding traffic. This is just sensible town-planning.
- barrkel 10y ago
  That's not true. The parking lot moats discourage density and make walking a real chore. The lack of density makes public transport less economical. Allocating enormous amounts of space to parking virtually guarantees that more people will drive.
  - freehunter 10y ago
    Chicken and egg. You can't have one store decide to not have a parking lot, because no one would go there. You could require all stores to be densely packed with no parking lots, but you can't force existing businesses to move or rip out their parking lots, so that would fail too. Believe it or not, we actually have businesses that are so dense that walking between them not only makes sense, it's the only way to get around. They're called "shopping malls" and everyone hates them.
    - barrkel 10y ago
      Shopping malls aren't disliked because they're dense - though the crowds don't help. Shopping malls are artificially constructed and specifically designed for discomfort, to force people to shop. Public seating is kept to a minimum, and benches are designed without backs, or otherwise to be uncomfortable, so people can't rest for free. Every available viewpoint is covered with shopping opportunities, in a consumerist assault on the senses. However much inspiration malls had from European town centres, commercial imperatives altered the construct fundamentally since.
    - xapata 10y ago
      > Chicken and egg. Luckily, there are some developers with deep enough pockets that they can plan an entire district. It's been wonderful for revitalizing many blighted neighborhoods.
marcc 10y ago
I think we should start removing those regulations that require large parking lots for new construction. It's a little forward-thinking, but if the next shopping center/strip mall/whatever was built only with pickup/dropoff spots and not park-while-you-shop spots, that would both encourage people to ride share today and also build for the future.
- ghaff 10y ago
  It would most likely result in people simply avoiding the next shopping center/strip mall/whatever because it's such a hassle to go there. Just as I rarely go to downtown areas today where parking is a hassle.
  - JBReefer 10y ago
    Ah yes, this of course is why urban cores nationwide are so cheap and empty! Honestly though, this is your experience and nearly decade of car-hostile planning has paid dividends in cities across the country, even if it doesn't work for all use cases. The suburbs and car-centered world only work in a single use case.
  - calvano915 10y ago
    Las Vegas casinos have started charging for parking after decades of being known for not doing so. This occurred after the newest large projects were built without large/any parking to accommodate drivers visiting those projects. I cannot speak for the impacts on locals visiting the Strip as this is still a new thing, but I do know that: - The casinos are making an additional $7+/day from every vehicle parking on their properties (those who haven't found a way to get free parking, including being on a higher than lowest gaming tier). - MGM Resorts started the trend, and within months Wynn and Caesars followed suit. The increased revenue in MGM's case was to fund an additional paid parking garage. - All future projects will probably follow suit and limit the amount of spaces. Throughout all of this, the only big improvement in public transit discussed has been some kind of rail option going down the Strip in the future. Otherwise, it seems to be that locals will pay more by either paying to park or using ride hailing/taxis. In other words, not necessarily moving us forward in transit efficiency and additional revenue to the benefit of a few companies.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
It might be considered a sort-of subsidy, but ultimately, the people who own land fronting on a road are the main beneficiaries. I also cannot frame a disparity in mass as "taking away rights." It only gets worse if this is identity politics. Don't get me wrong - people commuting alone in a car an hour or two a day is simply obscene. The article does a great job of identifying that the experiment in making all people drivers has failed, though. As long as I live, I'll never understand how people can be so blase about such high risk behavior.
- xapata 10y ago
  > identity politics I don't know what you mean by that. > cannot frame disparity in mass as "taking away rights" I'm guessing you're referring to the difference in the mass of an automobile and a person. Right-of-way laws are only one of the policies that I'm referring to, but that in particular was/is in fact taking away rights. Pedestrians had the right to cross the street at any place or time until automobile manufacturers ran marketing campaigns (such as inventing the term "Jay walking") and lobbied to change laws. Of course there should be some compromise, to promote safety and convenience, but perhaps we erred too much on the side of the automobile.
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    Of course I mean disparity in mass :) "Walkability" is inherently political ( goes to land use ) , and it's strongly correlated at least with people's identity. Cars have been about for 100 years, but it's only recently that there's been any writing to the effect of there being conflict. I think the basic mindset of drivers is a lot the problem, but it should be clear that as a pedestrian, you cannot trust car drivers to be very aware. There's only so much gain to be had there with things like rule changes. I see this as an extension of "everything is a college campus" but maybe that's just me.
    - xapata 10y ago
      > only recently Perhaps you should do a more thorough literature review. The NYT reported, "Nation roused against motor killings" in 1924. http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-machines/ http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-machines/

edblarney 10y ago

Government workers unions will not allow anyone to be laid off. Since the dawn of modern governance at about the turn of the last century, governments everywhere have been going in one direction: expansion. So they'll find other things for cops to do :) On day, about 2030, a Scandinavian country will 'ban human driving' citing safety risks. Then California, and NYC. In 2070, you'll sneak your grandchildren into an old Buick in and take them for a spin around some old parking lot - and your daughter in law will freak right out and get seriously pissed at you, threatening to call the police. 'Those crazy old people who actually think they can drive' ...

tyingq 10y ago

Just saw a news story on TV yesterday saying that US DUI arrests are down significantly, mostly due to services like Uber and Lyft.