Mobile 155

I will agree the speed and freedom of schedule may have increased the distance people can move to enjoy what ever they perceive the advantages are but cars didn't create the perception or desire.

As far as other forms of mass transit being effected isn't that the very nature of an evolving society? The old things become obsolete and the new replaces them.

Just because a tool may change or challenge the status quo doesn't mean it shouldn't be invented or even used. Modern medicine has been as responsible for increased population as anything else yet few would go back to the days when barbers were both doctor and dentist.

The Japanese have been using driver-less commuter trains for a long time now as has Germany. The latest Amtrak fiasco might show that the driverless system would be less likely to exceed a safe speed limit than a human with an attitude or bad judgment.

On top of every thing else there is freedom of choice. Some people would simply rather ride alone rather than in close proximity to other people.

Roody

I think this talk of choice is interesting. Sometimes inventions seem benign or beneficial when they're first introduced. Later, flaws are discovered in their designs, the inventions have unintended consequences, or people use and interact with them in unhealthy ways. This is certainly the case with cars. They're an example of something that seemed almost harmless (and mostly beneficial) when it was introduced. Now we are becoming aware of severe unintended consequences that negatively affect our environment and our society. It seems like a good time to start getting rid of cars--not passing on new "improvements" to their design, such a robot functioning, that will make them more popular and arguaably more dangerous to pedestrians, bicyclists, and others who would like to "choose" not to use them.

Roody

I doubt if Elon Musk will approve of human-driven bicycles being allowed among the self-driving cars of the future. Obviously, bicycles are operated mostly in the "intermediate" zone that Musk said is most difficult for driverless cars.

Musk went on to say that he anticipates self-driven cars will be the norm in about 20 years.

Read more:
Elon Musk: self-driving cars could lead to ban on human drivers | Technology | The Guardian

Mobile 155

Musk may have a point and it may have to be worked out but like it or not we are headed in that direction. We already have some level one cars on the road with self parking and self breaking and to a degree lane change control.

Musk isn't alone in his predictions because others are working under the same assumptions. https://www.vtpi.org/avip.pdf

I am only saying that for the majority and general safety the self driving taxi could be an improvement even over current mass transit. It most likely would be more convenient. Much like our computers and smart phones are in participating in this discussion.

Roody

And even safer and more convenient would be fewer cars, of whatever driver configuration, and more bicycles and pedestrians. That is what I will work toward, no matter what Elon Musk and other corporate mouthpieces would have us believe about the "inevitability" of machinery that will help their bottom lines under the concealment of saying it is better for "general safety."

I am a bicycle advocate, an environmental advocate, and a carfree advocate, and very far from being an advocate of whatever is convenient and profitable for automobile manufacturers.

Mobile 155

That is a noble cause. And if you see your efforts turning the head of the 95 percent to your point of view you will have accomplished much.

The odds are stacked against you and the move to more automatic vehicles is at the gate. Society makes its choices and adapts to those choices once made.

Industry only produces what people will buy. People want what they buy to make their life easier and automation does just that. Much like your keyboard makes this conversation easier than paper and pencil.

The easy part is deciding not to embrace the technology personally. The hard part in convincing the rest of society they are wrong and you are right. People vote with their wallet in my experience.

Roody

I don't care if society adopts driverless vehicles, although that's very much up in the air right now. But they better not freeze out bikes, pedestrians, and carfree people in general. And they need not to sell it (or any new technology) as "inevitable" because that's how they ram through stuff that's good for their own profits, but bad for just about everybody else. Finally, of course, we all need to be very aware of the tick-tock of the climate clock. Is this really a good time to adopt new technology that delays the death of fossil fuels?

Mobile 155

My guess would be to replace fossil fuel with nuclear generated electricity. China has like 13 new power plants under construction I believe.

They don't need to freeze out cyclists and pedestrians. They can simply devise a separate pathway for them, next to, over or under the electric vehicles.

cooker

That's not how rights work. One of the functions of higher level laws like the constitution as well as the courts is to ensure minority rights, as well as general principles. Pedestrians and cyclists have a right to use the public roadway, and many of us will fight to retain those rights, and their recognition in law, even if the majority don't exercise them.

Roody

Maybe you live in some bizarro-universe where something like this will happen. In this universe, we better fight for our right to use the roads that already exist.

Mobile 155

Do you ride or walk on elevated rails? Can you walk in subway tunnels? Separate roadways exist today to some degree.

cooker

If they build separate roadways for self driving cars, I'll be surprised.

snowman40

That'd be so cool, to have elevated bike paths that ran down the middle of highways! If they'd keep it clean and free of debris, I'd totally ride to my current place of employment then.

Mobile 155

So if they did provide a separate roadway you would accept it as an alternative? Because most of us have lived with Freeways in my state that were never designed with either cyclists or pedestrians in mind. We just learned to adapt to it and find ways around them. If they simply start with the Freeway and Turnpike system as it is the impact on either pedestrian or Cyclist would be minimal. And if they can move to a designated roadway system within the Urban areas they could decrease both pollution and congestion in one felt swoop. And if these were electric cars all the better.

I have used my bicycle in several places that are absolutely spider webbed with freeways that don't allow walking or cycling and never once felt I couldn't get to where I wanted to go. I have also traveled on those same restricted roadways up and down the state and into other states by vehicle and realized that bikes simply would have no place on them. The trucks would blow them off of the road even if they were allowed. We simply adjust to what it takes to co-exist.

Roody

And you have given up much of your comfort, convenience and safety so that people with cars can move a little faster. You have willingly given up some of your rights to ride on so-called public roads so that car and oil companies can make more money. And cyclists of the future will probably be willing to give up even more of their rights because Elon Musk has convinced them that "what's good for Tesla is Good for America."

Autonomous cars are said to offer a future with greater road capacity and better public safety. That may be true. But I think we need to keep in mind that there is an even better way to achieve those goals. That is to reduce our dependence on cars (no matter how they are navigated) and to move gradually to better alternatives like bikes, walking, and public transit.

Roody

It seems like autonomous cars are becoming "the Issue" in the media and internet. I'm literally seeing several articles every day--a huge increase. Personally, I'm glad to see that some writers are starting to question the purely positive reports from tech-heads and from Musk and others who hope to profit from adoption of autonomous cars. There are now reports of problems with the idea, including the possibility that autonomous cars might contribute to sprawl and longer work commutes. For example, from Slate.com:

Mobile 155

Not a problem for me. I don't like mega cities anyway. Moving to a super dense area to make us easier to control doesn't interest me much, not now and not when I was a young family man. So if today I could get in my car living in scenic Tahoe and get to my office in 30 minutes while a computer delivers me there fine and good.

I even like automatic bread machines for fresh bread and a GPS unit over a sextant.

Roody

Of course there will be 10 million other people living with you at Tahoe. I hope your view isn't blocked by a billboard advertising a great new bread machine.

cooker

I'm surprised you have such a benign or accepting view of freeways, as they have have a lot of negative consequences, especially inside urban areas where they create traffic hazards and barriers, harm neighbourhood life, waste a lot of space, and create noise and pollution. While you may have the confidence and skill to bike through all that mess, you're certainly well aware, many cyclists and pedestrians would never dare to do so, and would be coping with much more gnarly challenges that they should have to - high speed merging lanes, bad pavement, dark shadows, and so on. If we add another layer of protected roadways duplicating existing streets, we add to the disruption and other negative effects on the cityscape and the negative experiences of non-drivers. Why should I "simply adjust" to that? I'm not the passive fatalist type - are you?

cooker

Actually, cities have a long history of political dissent and resistance.

Mobile 155

We adjust to technological change every generation. That is how humans adapt. My contention for this forum is we have already learned to live with separate roadways for separate forms of transportation and because of that have increased our inter-reaction between countries and states. Because we as a race are unlikely I ever go back to pre car, pre plain, pre computer world we can adapt to the technology we see coming down thee pipeline. We simply do not have to concede that dense living is better than spread out living. Automatic cars could add to our ability to gain space between us and lessen the strife talked about earlier when we are packed together. Has not the riots we have seen over the last few months shown that we do not do well packed in like pigeons in a coup?

Yes I know half of us as a society like living one wall away from another family. But half of us would rather have our own yard and our own home and a way outside of the stress of packed Urban living. Hence the very word from Rome that we now call suburbs.

The unrest we see in our society is focused where? Not in the suburbs or even Rural areas. Maybe we aren't designed to live so close to each other. Maybe spreading out like Atlanta is a good thing and automatic taxis would ease the transition.

I-Like-To-Bike

Maybe news articles and speculation about Bruce Jenner, Apple Watches and autonomous cars can fill the news vacuum created by less news "articles in the media and internet" about the Kardashians and Miley Cyrus.

cooker

As discussed in the past ad nauseum, density in itself is not a cause of strife. The suburb of Ferguson, for example, is not particularly dense at 3,400/sq mi (1,300/km2), compared to the rest of St. Louis at 5,157/sq mi (1,991/km2).

Living "spread out" may have its advantages but it has a lot of disadvantages as well - more wasted space, more wasted time, more air pollution, greater infrastructure costs, and so on. Some of those disadvantages are borne by individuals by choice, but some, like air pollution, and infrastructure costs, are imposed on others, and thus are fair game for comment.

tandempower

Earth will always be as spread out as it is, and continents are the size they are. The issue is how to populate the land and how to use the land. Do we really want human geography to be spread out so much that driving or riding in a motor-vehicle is the only practical option for getting around? Of course investors who make money on cars and energy want us to be motor-dependent. Segregationists also like motor-dependence because they fear the people they don't want coming around will come around more by foot or bike. Pulling over suspicious cars is easier than policing foot and bike traffic, for example.

But as for yards and green space (trees), it isn't unthinkable to have yards and bikability/walkability. Mixed-use neighborhoods have to hire the people that live there and take residence there if that's where they work. If living near work becomes more predominant than living far from work, various mixed-use neighborhoods can be spread out and people can travel to other such areas by car, transit, or take long bike rides. The only option that should be off the table is for everything to be so evenly spread out that driving is the only practical option for most people, and thus de facto discrimination against cycling and transit emerge as a natural byproduct of infrastructure and cultural norms. That's the problem we're trying to overcome and one we shouldn't want to worsen.

auldgeunquers

Trade Unions will be thrilled!

Auto Makers. Teamsters (good excuse for further unionisation of trucking in N. America). Transit workers. Unionised taxi drivers.

90% less cars means 90% less auto mechanics too.

Will private auto ownership remain an option? Where - that is in which nations?

I can imagine this happening with much greater acceptance in a nation without a native auto industry (Denmark - Vietnam - Philipines - Norway) than in one which relies on auto manufacturing, sales and exports for a large share of it's economy (USA - Canada - Mexico - Germany -France - Japan - China)

Then there is the vested intrests of the petroleum industry and it's distribution system to consider.

And - how about the automotive aftemarket? Lots of jobs there too. I can't see a jacked-up taxi-bot with 35" mudders and a blower and custom paint - well, I can - in my mind - and it looks ridiculous.

This could get messy!