3 ms·
Doing something like that takes massive public investments in changing our roads and infrastructure. Given that this money will come from the public, I would ar
by frob 3y ago
Doing something like that takes massive public investments in changing our roads and infrastructure. Given that this money will come from the public, I would argue that it should be spent on publicly accessible tools and services, like enhanced public transit. I do not want to spend public money to build public infrastructure for the gain of massive private companies' experiments.
- danielvaughn 3y agoI mean, maybe? But it could be something as simple as (a) pick a designated color like purple or something, (b) paint a purple line in that lane, (c) make it a law that you can't operate the vehicle yourself while you're in that lane. I don't mean doing this today. I'm talking about a future where most vehicles have a driverless capability. The reason why it would be useful is that a lane of automated cars would be safer and more efficient. But the reality we have right now is that driverless cars are intermixed with human-driven cars, which will always be a danger.
- omniglottal 3y agoDisregard the price of your purple line, for I, a taxpayer, paid for the road you wish to paint. My car registration fees paid for it too. Don't dare assume it's OK to prevent me from driving on this public infrastructure. A couple year ago, politicians reduced a central thoroughfare through our city from two lanes to one, where a dedicated lane now exists for busses. This was profoundly unpopular and has increased congestion. Which of the one remaining lanes would you like to paint purple now?
- danielvaughn 3y agoExpand your horizon farther into the future. Imagine a world where the majority of vehicles have driverless capabilities. If you were to reserve a lane for automated traffic, it would significantly improve congestion and could lead to fewer lanes being needed at all.