7 ms·

If a city banned all manually driven cars and allowed only self driving cars, the number of car-related deaths would drop to almost nothing. Goods could also be

If a city banned all manually driven cars and allowed only self driving cars, the number of car-related deaths would drop to almost nothing. Goods could also be transported more efficiently. The technology to achive this exists right now, L5 or not. The only thing stopping citites from doing this is the cost that inhabitants will have in connection with selling or switching our their car. And all the complaining. But lives would be saved, and the city would be safer and more efficient.

Dylan16807 3y ago
I'm not sure how relevant that argument is. You could have said the same thing 40 years ago.
- xyproto 3y ago
  No. Self driving cars are better now. In addition to this, Cities are more open to changing which rules cars should follow. The effects of climate change are more visible, and the effects of polluted air are better known.
pjerem 3y ago
Cities will not need to do that. In Europe they are gradually banning cars as a whole from city centers an you are right, it saves lives. And it also makes those cities more livable. When I say gradually, it's an euphemism, it's an _extremely_ slow process, but it's the global tendency here.
- choeger 3y ago
  They aren't banning cars. They're requiring special permits. That's a difference. In effect, they're banning cars for the masses and keep them for a small group (the wealthy, all sorts of delivery drivers, officials).
  - ArnoVW 3y ago
    you're both right. generally what's happening is a combination of: * making pedestrian zones (i.e. banning) * deny access to certain types / times (no vans, no old cars, etc.. i.e. also banning) * reducing roads (i.e. 2 > 1 lane, thus reducing attractivity) * raising driving prices (the congestion / air quality certificates you mention) * reducing access to parking (remove places, make them more expensive, etc) .. all the while increasing alternatives (i.e. use those reduced lanes for bikes)
  - xkcd1963 3y ago
    I keep hearing life in Germany gets worse and worse

Dylan16807 3y ago

I'm not sure how relevant that argument is. You could have said the same thing 40 years ago.

xyproto 3y ago
No. Self driving cars are better now. In addition to this, Cities are more open to changing which rules cars should follow. The effects of climate change are more visible, and the effects of polluted air are better known.

pjerem 3y ago

Cities will not need to do that. In Europe they are gradually banning cars as a whole from city centers an you are right, it saves lives. And it also makes those cities more livable. When I say gradually, it's an euphemism, it's an _extremely_ slow process, but it's the global tendency here.

choeger 3y ago
They aren't banning cars. They're requiring special permits. That's a difference. In effect, they're banning cars for the masses and keep them for a small group (the wealthy, all sorts of delivery drivers, officials).
- ArnoVW 3y ago
  you're both right. generally what's happening is a combination of: * making pedestrian zones (i.e. banning) * deny access to certain types / times (no vans, no old cars, etc.. i.e. also banning) * reducing roads (i.e. 2 > 1 lane, thus reducing attractivity) * raising driving prices (the congestion / air quality certificates you mention) * reducing access to parking (remove places, make them more expensive, etc) .. all the while increasing alternatives (i.e. use those reduced lanes for bikes)
- xkcd1963 3y ago
  I keep hearing life in Germany gets worse and worse