3 ms·
> 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,
by 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 agoCities 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 agoEngineers 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.