3 ms·

That doesn't really address the concerns in the article though - your quote is from a book about Google buses, a separate issue (but one mentioned in the articl

That doesn't really address the concerns in the article though - your quote is from a book about Google buses, a separate issue (but one mentioned in the article). One couple said their son was nearly hit by a car. Another person said the decision to test in their area felt unilateral. This is pretty similar to how people reacted when cars showed up about a hundred years ago, and for good reason - drivers now kill half a million people a year, 30,000-40,000 of those in the US, disproportionately affecting people walking and cycling. We have evidence that self-driving cars are safer than human-driven cars, but we _also_ have evidence of "Tesla drivers pretending their half-assed version of self-driving is safe" and "self-driving car kills pedestrian" and no driver to face the consequence for this. More than a few of the touted designs for cities that self-driving cars enable are an utter hellscape for people who like walking, cycling, or motorcycling, and cars already destroyed our cities once. Personally, I'd rather live in a place with no cars of any sort. Barring that, I'd actually prefer self-driving cars (they do seem safer) with massive restrictions on speed, noise, etc. But I can understand these people's concerns and just calling them Luddites doesn't really help.

bko 8y ago
> More than a few of the touted designs for cities that self-driving cars enable are an utter hellscape for people who like walking, cycling, or motorcycling, and cars already destroyed our cities once. I don't follow. How are cities designed for self-driving cars hellscape? You admit that self-driving cars would likely lead to an objectively safer conditions for others, so what's the downside? They would also likely lead to higher utilization, more fuel efficiency and less traffic since much of traffic is due to human error. Protocols are also much easier to program and enforce than with human driven cars (e.g. people parking in bike lanes, double parking, stopping in unsafe zones to allow passengers to exit). You're not going to get rid of cars. It's nice to say you prefer walking and biking and such, but the fact is that that's mostly a luxury of being wealthy and having the ability to live in a location where you can access your place of work and other facilities easily. If you're living in a rural area or a less expensive suburb of a large city, you rely on other forms of transportation such as a car or public mode of transportation (e.g. bus or subway). There are also those that have mobility issues that would be greatly inconvenienced by your insistence of a car free world.
- sneakernets 8y ago
  Cities shouldn't be designed for cars. If anything, it should be the other way around. Additionally, the idea of living directly in a city to be a luxury really destroys the justification of a "city" in the first place, in my opinion. The whole idea of suburbs throughout human history was the luxury of not being in a city, but thanks to that mentality + the Baby Boom, modern cities are now glorified business parks.
  - bko 8y ago
    > Cities shouldn't be designed for cars. If anything, it should be the other way around. I think that would be easier to do with self-driving cars as opposed to human driven cars for the reasons I mentioned in the parent post
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    > Cities shouldn't be designed for cars. If anything, it should be the other way around. Sounds like a perfect being the enemy of the good issue. Whether or not cities are designed for cars is separate from 'should the cars be self-driving'. That sort of hairshirt anti-harm reduction has a poor track record. > The whole idea of suburbs throughout human history was the luxury of not being in a city, but thanks to that mentality + the Baby Boom, modern cities are now glorified business parks. That isn't true actually historically it was the reverse where the outskirts of the city were where the poor went, especially when it meant being outside of the protection of city walls! We are just seeing the trend reverse itself.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  Engineers seem to be promoting the idea that cars can use communication to replace the signals drivers get from their enivironment. https://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/self-driving/the-scary-efficiency-of-autonomous-intersections https://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/sel... mentions bombing through intersections at full speed for instance. Make that the norm and eventually cycling or walking will be outlawed (or too deadly to try). I get your point and have even gone and stood on paint to protect bike lanes. But I lack any faith in lawmakers to care about any mode other than driving.

bko 8y ago

> More than a few of the touted designs for cities that self-driving cars enable are an utter hellscape for people who like walking, cycling, or motorcycling, and cars already destroyed our cities once. I don't follow. How are cities designed for self-driving cars hellscape? You admit that self-driving cars would likely lead to an objectively safer conditions for others, so what's the downside? They would also likely lead to higher utilization, more fuel efficiency and less traffic since much of traffic is due to human error. Protocols are also much easier to program and enforce than with human driven cars (e.g. people parking in bike lanes, double parking, stopping in unsafe zones to allow passengers to exit). You're not going to get rid of cars. It's nice to say you prefer walking and biking and such, but the fact is that that's mostly a luxury of being wealthy and having the ability to live in a location where you can access your place of work and other facilities easily. If you're living in a rural area or a less expensive suburb of a large city, you rely on other forms of transportation such as a car or public mode of transportation (e.g. bus or subway). There are also those that have mobility issues that would be greatly inconvenienced by your insistence of a car free world.

sneakernets 8y ago
Cities shouldn't be designed for cars. If anything, it should be the other way around. Additionally, the idea of living directly in a city to be a luxury really destroys the justification of a "city" in the first place, in my opinion. The whole idea of suburbs throughout human history was the luxury of not being in a city, but thanks to that mentality + the Baby Boom, modern cities are now glorified business parks.
- bko 8y ago
  > Cities shouldn't be designed for cars. If anything, it should be the other way around. I think that would be easier to do with self-driving cars as opposed to human driven cars for the reasons I mentioned in the parent post
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  > Cities shouldn't be designed for cars. If anything, it should be the other way around. Sounds like a perfect being the enemy of the good issue. Whether or not cities are designed for cars is separate from 'should the cars be self-driving'. That sort of hairshirt anti-harm reduction has a poor track record. > The whole idea of suburbs throughout human history was the luxury of not being in a city, but thanks to that mentality + the Baby Boom, modern cities are now glorified business parks. That isn't true actually historically it was the reverse where the outskirts of the city were where the poor went, especially when it meant being outside of the protection of city walls! We are just seeing the trend reverse itself.
CalRobert 8y ago
Engineers seem to be promoting the idea that cars can use communication to replace the signals drivers get from their enivironment. https://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/self-driving/the-scary-efficiency-of-autonomous-intersections https://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/sel... mentions bombing through intersections at full speed for instance. Make that the norm and eventually cycling or walking will be outlawed (or too deadly to try). I get your point and have even gone and stood on paint to protect bike lanes. But I lack any faith in lawmakers to care about any mode other than driving.