8 ms·

From my cold, dead hands... My wife and I were discussing American culture today and some of the reasons we'll be hard pressed to do anything to solve our pres

From my cold, dead hands... My wife and I were discussing American culture today and some of the reasons we'll be hard pressed to do anything to solve our present issues with mass shootings and I look at car culture and see the same kind of value. Americans aren't really good at giving up freedom, for any reason, no matter how many people will die. Cars and driving represent a freedom that I don't think we're going to be giving up any time soon. As you likely assumed from my first line, I'm part of the side that would fight tooth and nail against any attempts to legislate away independently owned and operated automobiles. I won't waste any time trying to convince people who hate cars that I'm right but I'll tell you that Uber doesn't come near my house and that's a perk. I live 30+ miles outside of the nearest "city" and loooooooove driving/riding (motorcycles) back roads and hills. I'm not trading in my car or truck or jeep or bike or bike for a blob that slips in and out of a pneumatic tube, no matter how much I love Futurama. ps- Some of my neighbors ride their horses on the same road I drive. We wave.

sitharus 9y ago
I agree, but I think automated vehicles will begin to dominate city and bulk freight transport. I wouldn't be surprised if automated vehicle only lanes start appearing on freeways with a higher speed limit, or dedicated parallel roadways. You can certainly move more people faster without the human in the loop. I think what this article misses is that although non-owned automated vehicles would be great for commuting or leisure activities they wouldn't be great for shopping or road trips. There's going to be a place for the personal car for a long time.
yequalsx 9y ago
Considering that you are a not a city dweller and most people are (I include suburbs and exurbs in this) I think it quite possible your view is not normative. I don’t hate cars. But I can’t wait for the day I can go without ownership of one. What I do love is not the car but the freedom it gives. If I can replace car ownership without giving up that freedom then I will gladly do so.
WalterBright 9y ago
> Americans aren't really good at giving up freedom, for any reason, no matter how many people will die. Another way to look at it is a lot of Americans risked their lives for our freedoms, and a large percentage of them died for it. The price of freedom is always blood. We should be exceedingly careful about giving up freedoms so dearly purchased.
- alphabettsy 9y ago
  Which Americans are you referring to? There hasn’t been a war fought in recent years/decades that was a direct response to a direct threat to the United States.
  - Clanan 9y ago
    Are you being serious? How about World War II. 60 million killed worldwide, 419,000 Americans.
    - nsp 9y ago
      Arguably 70+ years ago doesn’t count as recent years/decades
  - Scramblejams 9y ago
    There’s no statute of limitations on that sacrifice.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- Buldak 9y ago
  There are good reasons to preserve the freedom to own and drive cars, but "Americans died for X" usually strikes me as pernicious sophistry.
s17n 9y ago
I don't really care about people dying but I would gladly eliminate human operated vehicles if it meant that speed limits and traffic were a thing of the past.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  A majority of the people being killed in road accidents are not causative agents in their own deaths - are you unconcerned about that?
  - s17n 9y ago
    Correct.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  I wonder if traffic really would get better, automated cars reduce the cost of driving so it may be we would see an increase in traffic.
michaelbuckbee 9y ago
I think it's more likely going to be your cold empty wallet that prompts the change. As the shift moves on the insurance pool of manual only drivers is going to get worse and worse and the rates are going to skyrocket.
- nathanaldensr 9y ago
  I keep seeing this repeated on various forums. My question is: why? If autonomous vehicles supposedly make driving so much safer, that would seem to indicate less accidents overall, which would lower insurance rates; after all, what would you be insuring against?
  - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
    You insure yourself, not the other drivers. It's analogous to buying flood insurance. It's super expensive because the only people who buy it are those who live on floodplains. If the only people who bought car insurance are the riskiest drivers who are clinging to less safe forms of transport, and the rest of the pool that used to contribute premiums are now in safer, cheaper autonomous vehicles and different forms of insurance, then the manual group would need higher premiums.
    - rpenm 9y ago
      Insurance cost isn't about the number of customers, it's about risk distribution and concentration. Flood insurance in high-risk areas is expensive because claims are frequent, large and concentrated (large percentage of customers making claims at the same time). Unless future drivers become more accident-prone than today's drivers, their premiums will be similar. I don't see much incentive for adverse selection. The point GP was making is that as autonomous vehicles replace manual, the likelihood of an inter-vehicular accident should also fall for the remaining manual vehicles, lowering their premiums. A nice positive externality - more reason to subsidize autonomous vehicles.
- kylec 9y ago
  Let’s say we get to a point where being driven autonomously is cheaper and more convenient than owning and driving your own car. Wouldn’t the people that still choose to drive, despite the higher cost, be the people that like driving? And wouldn’t it make sense that these people would be pretty good drivers, get into accidents less, and therefore cost less to insure than the average driver today?
Clanan 9y ago
I think this is a strong argument that's easily overlooked, like other "political" arguments vs. tech. I expect ample pushback against autonomous auto legislation because of the freedom/privacy implications. It's the government removing the primary means of transport for the entire population, and placing it into the hands of massive corporations. A huge gathering of power for Big Brother. I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court ruled such laws unconstitutional. Car culture == freedom of expression or something.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  Get cars classified as firearms, and its a done deal.
kjksf 9y ago
Americans are just like everyone else when it comes to effects of price and convenience. In Manhattan, only 23% of households own cars (https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-yorkers-and-cars https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-yorkers-and-cars). In suburbs, it's 100%+. Are Americans living in suburbs 5x more freedom loving than those living in Manhattan? Of course not. In suburbs owning a car is a necessity (regardless of price). In Manhattan, you can live without a car and space is in such a premium that owning a car is an expensive hassle. You can see how massive effect of price and convenience can be. Now imagine that long term per-mile cost of using a car from a fleet is lower than buying your own car? Most people will switch. How is that possible? Cars are idle, on average, 96% of the time. If a fleet of cars can generate 50% utilization (12 hour out of 24 hour day), there's a lot of room to make a profit while charging lower per-mile price than owning a car. When self-driving technology works, it'll be a matter of time for majority (easily 50%+) of people to switch to using a car from self-driving fleet vs. owning a car.
- dmitrygr 9y ago
  Go look at the typical contents of a soccer mom's car and you will realize why what you just said is very short-sighted. For some people cars are not just a method to get from A to B in the morning and from B to a in the evening.
  - xbmcuser 9y ago
    You are assuming the way people live their lives and commute will be the same in the next 2-3 decades. A child born today that will live with automated travel in the future won't have the same needs when he grows into the 30s and has his own kids. You and I might not be willing to trust a robot to drive our children to soccer camp or whatever activity but someone that grows up with tech wont have the same hesitance.
- igetspam 9y ago
  I actually disagree with a fundamental part of your argument. I do believe those living outside city centers are significantly more "freedom loving" than their city dwelling counterparts. I don't live out here because I can't afford to live in a city, I live out here because I'm afforded more freedom (more free space to move around, fewer lifestyle restrictions, generally fewer regulations, etc) to do as I want. I think the idea of autonomous vehicles or an outright ban on vehicles makes sense in a place like Manhattan. Most of us don't live there and this is a rather sprawling country. Waiting around for an autonomous blob to get to my house when my pig has decided that ant poison is delicious and needs to be rushed to the vet wouldn't work. If price were a motivating enough factor for people to change, places like SF and Manhattan would be empty.
losteverything 9y ago
<Cars and driving represent a freedom A car is an extension of an American's freedom. We won't give it up: it has to be taken. One path i see it taken is selling public roadways to shore up state (et al) deficits. Big-driverless-company gets control of the roads and can begin to modify and place restrictions. I, for one, believe my roadways are mine. Won by my father for winning Ww2 as Eisenhower created the interstate system, the "explosion" of freedom where the car is the center. Just try to restrict my getting in my car and going where i please, when i please. If a driverless car gets in my way, watch out!
- Shorel 9y ago
  Or, you will die of old age and your sons and grandsons will not care about cars.
  - losteverything 9y ago
    Quite true...
tonyedgecombe 9y ago
I live 30+ miles outside of the nearest "city" So you really are an outlier. Your problem won't be your freedoms being legislated away, it will be the cost of them increasing when everybody else abandons the platform.
amyjess 9y ago
You've got a good point. I can see a future where "car culture" is considered just as uniquely American as "gun culture", where every other country has banned human-driven cars but the US keeps driving their own.
HeyLaughingBoy 9y ago
I'll see your ps and raise you :-) My wife and her friends ride their horses to the neighborhood bar which actually has a tie rail for them out back. They had someone call a local TV station a few years back when she rode a horse into a McD's drive-through. No point to this post besides that you reminded me of it :-)

sitharus 9y ago

I agree, but I think automated vehicles will begin to dominate city and bulk freight transport. I wouldn't be surprised if automated vehicle only lanes start appearing on freeways with a higher speed limit, or dedicated parallel roadways. You can certainly move more people faster without the human in the loop. I think what this article misses is that although non-owned automated vehicles would be great for commuting or leisure activities they wouldn't be great for shopping or road trips. There's going to be a place for the personal car for a long time.

yequalsx 9y ago

Considering that you are a not a city dweller and most people are (I include suburbs and exurbs in this) I think it quite possible your view is not normative. I don’t hate cars. But I can’t wait for the day I can go without ownership of one. What I do love is not the car but the freedom it gives. If I can replace car ownership without giving up that freedom then I will gladly do so.

WalterBright 9y ago

> Americans aren't really good at giving up freedom, for any reason, no matter how many people will die. Another way to look at it is a lot of Americans risked their lives for our freedoms, and a large percentage of them died for it. The price of freedom is always blood. We should be exceedingly careful about giving up freedoms so dearly purchased.

alphabettsy 9y ago
Which Americans are you referring to? There hasn’t been a war fought in recent years/decades that was a direct response to a direct threat to the United States.
- Clanan 9y ago
  Are you being serious? How about World War II. 60 million killed worldwide, 419,000 Americans.
  - nsp 9y ago
    Arguably 70+ years ago doesn’t count as recent years/decades
- Scramblejams 9y ago
  There’s no statute of limitations on that sacrifice.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Buldak 9y ago
There are good reasons to preserve the freedom to own and drive cars, but "Americans died for X" usually strikes me as pernicious sophistry.

s17n 9y ago

I don't really care about people dying but I would gladly eliminate human operated vehicles if it meant that speed limits and traffic were a thing of the past.

mannykannot 9y ago
A majority of the people being killed in road accidents are not causative agents in their own deaths - are you unconcerned about that?
- s17n 9y ago
  Correct.
tonyedgecombe 9y ago
I wonder if traffic really would get better, automated cars reduce the cost of driving so it may be we would see an increase in traffic.

michaelbuckbee 9y ago

I think it's more likely going to be your cold empty wallet that prompts the change. As the shift moves on the insurance pool of manual only drivers is going to get worse and worse and the rates are going to skyrocket.

nathanaldensr 9y ago
I keep seeing this repeated on various forums. My question is: why? If autonomous vehicles supposedly make driving so much safer, that would seem to indicate less accidents overall, which would lower insurance rates; after all, what would you be insuring against?
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  You insure yourself, not the other drivers. It's analogous to buying flood insurance. It's super expensive because the only people who buy it are those who live on floodplains. If the only people who bought car insurance are the riskiest drivers who are clinging to less safe forms of transport, and the rest of the pool that used to contribute premiums are now in safer, cheaper autonomous vehicles and different forms of insurance, then the manual group would need higher premiums.
  - rpenm 9y ago
    Insurance cost isn't about the number of customers, it's about risk distribution and concentration. Flood insurance in high-risk areas is expensive because claims are frequent, large and concentrated (large percentage of customers making claims at the same time). Unless future drivers become more accident-prone than today's drivers, their premiums will be similar. I don't see much incentive for adverse selection. The point GP was making is that as autonomous vehicles replace manual, the likelihood of an inter-vehicular accident should also fall for the remaining manual vehicles, lowering their premiums. A nice positive externality - more reason to subsidize autonomous vehicles.
kylec 9y ago
Let’s say we get to a point where being driven autonomously is cheaper and more convenient than owning and driving your own car. Wouldn’t the people that still choose to drive, despite the higher cost, be the people that like driving? And wouldn’t it make sense that these people would be pretty good drivers, get into accidents less, and therefore cost less to insure than the average driver today?

Clanan 9y ago

I think this is a strong argument that's easily overlooked, like other "political" arguments vs. tech. I expect ample pushback against autonomous auto legislation because of the freedom/privacy implications. It's the government removing the primary means of transport for the entire population, and placing it into the hands of massive corporations. A huge gathering of power for Big Brother. I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court ruled such laws unconstitutional. Car culture == freedom of expression or something.

mannykannot 9y ago
Get cars classified as firearms, and its a done deal.

kjksf 9y ago

Americans are just like everyone else when it comes to effects of price and convenience. In Manhattan, only 23% of households own cars (https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-yorkers-and-cars https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-yorkers-and-cars). In suburbs, it's 100%+. Are Americans living in suburbs 5x more freedom loving than those living in Manhattan? Of course not. In suburbs owning a car is a necessity (regardless of price). In Manhattan, you can live without a car and space is in such a premium that owning a car is an expensive hassle. You can see how massive effect of price and convenience can be. Now imagine that long term per-mile cost of using a car from a fleet is lower than buying your own car? Most people will switch. How is that possible? Cars are idle, on average, 96% of the time. If a fleet of cars can generate 50% utilization (12 hour out of 24 hour day), there's a lot of room to make a profit while charging lower per-mile price than owning a car. When self-driving technology works, it'll be a matter of time for majority (easily 50%+) of people to switch to using a car from self-driving fleet vs. owning a car.

dmitrygr 9y ago
Go look at the typical contents of a soccer mom's car and you will realize why what you just said is very short-sighted. For some people cars are not just a method to get from A to B in the morning and from B to a in the evening.
- xbmcuser 9y ago
  You are assuming the way people live their lives and commute will be the same in the next 2-3 decades. A child born today that will live with automated travel in the future won't have the same needs when he grows into the 30s and has his own kids. You and I might not be willing to trust a robot to drive our children to soccer camp or whatever activity but someone that grows up with tech wont have the same hesitance.
igetspam 9y ago
I actually disagree with a fundamental part of your argument. I do believe those living outside city centers are significantly more "freedom loving" than their city dwelling counterparts. I don't live out here because I can't afford to live in a city, I live out here because I'm afforded more freedom (more free space to move around, fewer lifestyle restrictions, generally fewer regulations, etc) to do as I want. I think the idea of autonomous vehicles or an outright ban on vehicles makes sense in a place like Manhattan. Most of us don't live there and this is a rather sprawling country. Waiting around for an autonomous blob to get to my house when my pig has decided that ant poison is delicious and needs to be rushed to the vet wouldn't work. If price were a motivating enough factor for people to change, places like SF and Manhattan would be empty.

losteverything 9y ago

<Cars and driving represent a freedom A car is an extension of an American's freedom. We won't give it up: it has to be taken. One path i see it taken is selling public roadways to shore up state (et al) deficits. Big-driverless-company gets control of the roads and can begin to modify and place restrictions. I, for one, believe my roadways are mine. Won by my father for winning Ww2 as Eisenhower created the interstate system, the "explosion" of freedom where the car is the center. Just try to restrict my getting in my car and going where i please, when i please. If a driverless car gets in my way, watch out!

Shorel 9y ago
Or, you will die of old age and your sons and grandsons will not care about cars.
- losteverything 9y ago
  Quite true...

tonyedgecombe 9y ago

I live 30+ miles outside of the nearest "city" So you really are an outlier. Your problem won't be your freedoms being legislated away, it will be the cost of them increasing when everybody else abandons the platform.

amyjess 9y ago

You've got a good point. I can see a future where "car culture" is considered just as uniquely American as "gun culture", where every other country has banned human-driven cars but the US keeps driving their own.

HeyLaughingBoy 9y ago

I'll see your ps and raise you :-) My wife and her friends ride their horses to the neighborhood bar which actually has a tie rail for them out back. They had someone call a local TV station a few years back when she rode a horse into a McD's drive-through. No point to this post besides that you reminded me of it :-)