3 ms·

We should stop Tolerating Human Carnage. But the solution is not self driving cars. The actual way to solve the 'Carnage' is to adopt well proven well studied

We should stop Tolerating Human Carnage. But the solution is not self driving cars. The actual way to solve the 'Carnage' is to adopt well proven well studied infrastructure changes. After 40+ years of idiotic car brain policies, some nations have started to push back and actually started to treat road safety more like aviation safety. Constant review and feedback into the profession and infrastructure updates. Vision Zero is approachable even without self driving cars. But even that is looking at the problem in the wrong way. True improvement comes from modal shift to public transport, along with increasing use in walking and biking. Those mods are saver and healthier by any possible measure, no matter how amazing these self driving machines will be in the future. This is not only good for less people dying in traffic, its also good for many, many, many other reasons. General population fitness, general health and so on. The list of effects of good urbanism and anti car policy is basically endless. Cars are the problem, and self driving cars are a solution to part of that problem, and electric cars are a solution to part of that problem. But cars are still overall the actual problem biggest problem. Instead of investing countless billions in these two sub problems, for far, far less money you could do a huge amount to change the actual structure of how transportation works. Not Just Bikes has a good video on the problem with self driving cars, even if the technology worked as advertised. Its not how we want the future to look like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=040ejWnFkj0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=040ejWnFkj0 Putting each human into an individual multi-ton pod is stupid, unnecessary and dangerous even if you plaster unlimited amounts of technology on each pod. We know how to create massively better societies in every way, its not dispute in people who research these things. Self driving cars can be a tiny part of that, but mostly in rural and suburban regions. In cities they are not needed. This hyper focus on human car crashes is to narrow and misses a much bigger discussion, but this is a discussion the car industry and the individualistically driven AI people don't want to have.

no-name-here 3mo ago
It's a good goal to have, and to continue working towards. At the same time, we shouldn't let that goal cause massive numbers of unnecessary deaths because we're avoiding the thing that can save lives along the way. 1.35 million people die per year due to road traffic. You mentioned that billions are being invested in solving self-driving and electric cars, but that "for far, far less money you could do a huge amount to change the actual structure of how transportation works" - is that true/source? The cost of a single subway line can cost multiple billions of dollars per mile, a high-speed rail line in a single state can cost hundreds of billions of dollars, etc. - and there are a lot of miles in the US, a lot of states, etc. And the other big difference is about who pays for it - even if billions of dollars are being invested in solving self-driving and electric cars, it's a lot of private money doing that, whereas building public transportation is mostly taxpayer funds. Again, they probably are good things to continue investing in, working towards, etc. - but I don't think we should delay solving even a tiny percent of the 1.35 million deaths per year in order to wait for public transportation to be solved. (And per the OP article, it's more like 94% reduction already with the existing self-driving technology, and it keeps getting better.)
- panick21_ 3mo ago
  > At the same time, we shouldn't let that goal cause massive numbers of unnecessary deaths because we're avoiding the thing that can save lives along the way. The argument here is that political capital and time should be invest to change people mind about self driving cars. My argument is that political capital and time should be invested in changing people mind about the fundamental approach to land use and transportation. > is that true/source? There is a whole field of study on every aspect of this. Basically the medical community, the city planning community, the ecological community and the transport planners (outside of the US) all generally reach the same conclusions. Bike lands, road diets, and bus lanes, bus priority are very cheap. Basically free. They are mostly political reallocation's of space. The politics are the hardest part, not the cost. Rezoning is essentially free, or actually produces huge amounts of value. Its very, very well document what the problem with US land use patterns and transportation systems are. See Strong Towns or Urban3 analysis for example. Many of the choice that cause a lot of death, like stroads, are also economically idiotic. > The cost of a single subway line can cost multiple billions of dollars per mile, a high-speed rail line in a single state can cost hundreds of billions of dollars, etc. - and there are a lot of miles in the US, a lot of states, etc. The US operates on such a low level, there is so much you can do before even getting to those things. Like we are talking minimal competence of running bus lanes in a modern way, or having basic signaling priority. The cost large infrastructure is a bigger topic, but that's not mostly what I am talking about. Those things are such a insignificant part of US transportation currently it barley worth talking about. > And the other big difference is about who pays for it - even if billions of dollars are being invested in solving self-driving and electric cars, it's a lot of private money doing that, whereas building public transportation is mostly taxpayer funds. You are ignoring the larger structure, the road network and the electricity network are deeply political and public. And even beyond that, electric cars have seen political support. But of course the whole reason why so much public investment flows into these things is because the infrastructure is design in a way where there is a gigantic market for cars that you can sell into. The market is downstream of higher level choice in terms of infrastructure and land use. The under taxing and over support of parking alone accounts for many, many billions in subsidies. But on some level, in the end it comes down to what your society ends up spending totally on transportation and how efficient that is. The investors investing in these things need to make their money back. And the US is generally not very efficient, its just rich enough to care less. If you look at total 'consumption' that looks ok, but then you realize its just a expensive pickup truck that you end up sitting in traffic jams doesn't really improve your live that much. If you look at how effectively poor people generally get around, the results are not that great. Car dependency cause tons of problems and cost on society and is worst for the poorest. So I guess I just care less about who provides capital compared to what the outcomes are. The idea that public capital investment is bad and private investment is a universal good that can never be questioned is just not how I think about it. > in order to wait for public transportation to be solved. My argument is much wider then just 'public transport'. Its about how all land use and transportation infrastructure is organized. > And per the OP article, it's more like 94% reduction already with the existing self-driving technology, and it keeps getting better. Some of that can be questioned but its not my focus. Even if it was 100% reduction, its to narrow of an argument.

no-name-here 3mo ago

It's a good goal to have, and to continue working towards. At the same time, we shouldn't let that goal cause massive numbers of unnecessary deaths because we're avoiding the thing that can save lives along the way. 1.35 million people die per year due to road traffic. You mentioned that billions are being invested in solving self-driving and electric cars, but that "for far, far less money you could do a huge amount to change the actual structure of how transportation works" - is that true/source? The cost of a single subway line can cost multiple billions of dollars per mile, a high-speed rail line in a single state can cost hundreds of billions of dollars, etc. - and there are a lot of miles in the US, a lot of states, etc. And the other big difference is about who pays for it - even if billions of dollars are being invested in solving self-driving and electric cars, it's a lot of private money doing that, whereas building public transportation is mostly taxpayer funds. Again, they probably are good things to continue investing in, working towards, etc. - but I don't think we should delay solving even a tiny percent of the 1.35 million deaths per year in order to wait for public transportation to be solved. (And per the OP article, it's more like 94% reduction already with the existing self-driving technology, and it keeps getting better.)

panick21_ 3mo ago
> At the same time, we shouldn't let that goal cause massive numbers of unnecessary deaths because we're avoiding the thing that can save lives along the way. The argument here is that political capital and time should be invest to change people mind about self driving cars. My argument is that political capital and time should be invested in changing people mind about the fundamental approach to land use and transportation. > is that true/source? There is a whole field of study on every aspect of this. Basically the medical community, the city planning community, the ecological community and the transport planners (outside of the US) all generally reach the same conclusions. Bike lands, road diets, and bus lanes, bus priority are very cheap. Basically free. They are mostly political reallocation's of space. The politics are the hardest part, not the cost. Rezoning is essentially free, or actually produces huge amounts of value. Its very, very well document what the problem with US land use patterns and transportation systems are. See Strong Towns or Urban3 analysis for example. Many of the choice that cause a lot of death, like stroads, are also economically idiotic. > The cost of a single subway line can cost multiple billions of dollars per mile, a high-speed rail line in a single state can cost hundreds of billions of dollars, etc. - and there are a lot of miles in the US, a lot of states, etc. The US operates on such a low level, there is so much you can do before even getting to those things. Like we are talking minimal competence of running bus lanes in a modern way, or having basic signaling priority. The cost large infrastructure is a bigger topic, but that's not mostly what I am talking about. Those things are such a insignificant part of US transportation currently it barley worth talking about. > And the other big difference is about who pays for it - even if billions of dollars are being invested in solving self-driving and electric cars, it's a lot of private money doing that, whereas building public transportation is mostly taxpayer funds. You are ignoring the larger structure, the road network and the electricity network are deeply political and public. And even beyond that, electric cars have seen political support. But of course the whole reason why so much public investment flows into these things is because the infrastructure is design in a way where there is a gigantic market for cars that you can sell into. The market is downstream of higher level choice in terms of infrastructure and land use. The under taxing and over support of parking alone accounts for many, many billions in subsidies. But on some level, in the end it comes down to what your society ends up spending totally on transportation and how efficient that is. The investors investing in these things need to make their money back. And the US is generally not very efficient, its just rich enough to care less. If you look at total 'consumption' that looks ok, but then you realize its just a expensive pickup truck that you end up sitting in traffic jams doesn't really improve your live that much. If you look at how effectively poor people generally get around, the results are not that great. Car dependency cause tons of problems and cost on society and is worst for the poorest. So I guess I just care less about who provides capital compared to what the outcomes are. The idea that public capital investment is bad and private investment is a universal good that can never be questioned is just not how I think about it. > in order to wait for public transportation to be solved. My argument is much wider then just 'public transport'. Its about how all land use and transportation infrastructure is organized. > And per the OP article, it's more like 94% reduction already with the existing self-driving technology, and it keeps getting better. Some of that can be questioned but its not my focus. Even if it was 100% reduction, its to narrow of an argument.