Ban urban vehicles

[Australian rePublic]

And how does your stupid idea differ from self-driving cars. I friken hate everything about the concept of self-driving cars

Why? Sitting enjoying a coffee while catching up on the news or other on the way to work, a way that will have far fewer traffic jams in the peace and quiet of your little auto pod, or maybe some nice music if you prefer..

..seems far more pleasant than.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk2YRpLnmdU

1. They're dangerous if hacked
2. They take away your freedom
3. I'm not convinced that the technology works
4. I don't like the concept of AIs. I don't think we've had enough of an ethical discussion about AIs, self-driving cars bring us to closer to that
Need I go on?

[Shanghai industrial complex]

2. They take away your freedom

WTF......Are you seriously?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

2. They take away your freedom

WTF......Are you seriously?

There is a little freedom in driving. But really I think what ArP will miss is the feeling of power.

Cars are undeniably empowering, but I think pods will provide a good substitute. With some bonuses even: for instance going exactly where you want whether parking is available there or not.

[Cisairse]

Why? Sitting enjoying a coffee while catching up on the news or other on the way to work, a way that will have far fewer traffic jams in the peace and quiet of your little auto pod, or maybe some nice music if you prefer..

..seems far more pleasant than.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk2YRpLnmdU

1. They're dangerous if hacked
2. They take away your freedom
3. I'm not convinced that the technology works
4. I don't like the concept of AIs. I don't think we've had enough of an ethical discussion about AIs, self-driving cars bring us to closer to that
Need I go on?

We've definitely had a ton of ethical discussions about AI. Professionals in the field are very aware of the ethics of technology.

[Snoodum]

1. They're dangerous if hacked
2. They take away your freedom
3. I'm not convinced that the technology works
4. I don't like the concept of AIs. I don't think we've had enough of an ethical discussion about AIs, self-driving cars bring us to closer to that
Need I go on?

We've definitely had a ton of ethical discussions about AI. Professionals in the field are very aware of the ethics of technology.

I'm thinking we give drivers more assistance. No need for self-driving cars, they can undoubtedly be hacked and, if they were introduced to an great extent, would need a manual switch so the person in the driver seat can take control. I'm not sure what form more assistance for drivers would take exactly, but cleverer people than I would have an idea. Self-driving seems a bit too open exploitation and many might not like the lack of control.

[SD_Film Artists]

2. They take away your freedom

WTF......Are you seriously?

How does it not take away freedom? For example, which option is more free:

1: taking a train (at least in the UK) are obscenely overpriced and you have to go to a set destination and at a time dictated by the whims of the train company, which can sometimes gaps of an hour or more *if* they're not on strike.

2. Go in a self-driving car. You get to go at a time and location of your choosing but you're still disempowered as a human driver, which at best removes a hobby from your life and at worst puts your life in the hands of a computer which may be hacked or tracks your location or is has a bug.

3. Driving by yourself, with the vehicle practically being an extension of yourself- total freedom. Being able to overtake etc, within the law.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

WTF......Are you seriously?

How does it not take away freedom? For example, which option is more free:

1: taking a train (at least in the UK) are obscenely overpriced and you have to go to a set destination and at a time dictated by the whims of the train company, which can sometimes gaps of an hour or more *if* they're not on strike.

2. Go in a self-driving car. You get to go at a time and location of your choosing but you're still disempowered as a human driver, which at best removes a hobby from your life and at worst puts your life in the hands of a computer which may be hacked or tracks your location or is has a bug.

3. Driving by yourself, with the vehicle practically being an extension of yourself- total freedom. Being able to overtake etc, within the law.

2. It removes a hobby from your life. Granted.

3. It's not "total" freedom. Even if there were no other drivers to worry about, even if there were no road rules, your freedom would still be limited by the edges of the road. Drive into a tree, you're dead: the only time you ever have zero freedom.

Overtaking feels like freedom to you. Couldn't it also be the opposite: if you want to get there on time and there's a tractor ahead of you, you HAVE to overtake.

[Thepeopl]

WTF......Are you seriously?

How does it not take away freedom? For example, which option is more free:

1: taking a train (at least in the UK) are obscenely overpriced and you have to go to a set destination and at a time dictated by the whims of the train company, which can sometimes gaps of an hour or more *if* they're not on strike.

2. Go in a self-driving car. You get to go at a time and location of your choosing but you're still disempowered as a human driver, which at best removes a hobby from your life and at worst puts your life in the hands of a computer which may be hacked or tracks your location or is has a bug.

3. Driving by yourself, with the vehicle practically being an extension of yourself- total freedom. Being able to overtake etc, within the law.

1. Invest in public transport and give access to the city with cycles.
https://www.belgiantrain.be/en/tickets- ... train-bike


https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 19-10061-3
2, while in a self driving car (or bus or train) you can do games, read books, write articles etc. No wasted time on travelling, extra free time to work, study, recreate.

3. A vehicle which is polluting, noisy, kills animals and children and is prone to kill drivers in one sided accidents. The Trees/ buildings did not move into the path of the cars.

The language one uses, shapes our views on reality.
http://decorrespondent.fetchapp.com/get/efba54b1

[SD_Film Artists]

How does it not take away freedom? For example, which option is more free:

1: taking a train (at least in the UK) are obscenely overpriced and you have to go to a set destination and at a time dictated by the whims of the train company, which can sometimes gaps of an hour or more *if* they're not on strike.

2. Go in a self-driving car. You get to go at a time and location of your choosing but you're still disempowered as a human driver, which at best removes a hobby from your life and at worst puts your life in the hands of a computer which may be hacked or tracks your location or is has a bug.

3. Driving by yourself, with the vehicle practically being an extension of yourself- total freedom. Being able to overtake etc, within the law.

2. It removes a hobby from your life. Granted.

3. It's not "total" freedom. Even if there were no other drivers to worry about, even if there were no road rules, your freedom would still be limited by the edges of the road. Drive into a tree, you're dead: the only time you ever have zero freedom.

Are you saying that I should get a bus or a self-driving car just because a normal car doesn't have the maneuverability of a helicopter? Also there is such thing as 4x4, supermoto, ADV bikes and scramblers.

Overtaking feels like freedom to you. Couldn't it also be the opposite: if you want to get there on time and there's a tractor ahead of you, you HAVE to overtake.

At least you can overtake, whereas a self-driving car may choose to stay behind the tractor unless it was going slow enough for the car to make a safe overtake within the speed limit.

[SD_Film Artists]

How does it not take away freedom? For example, which option is more free:

1: taking a train (at least in the UK) are obscenely overpriced and you have to go to a set destination and at a time dictated by the whims of the train company, which can sometimes gaps of an hour or more *if* they're not on strike.

2. Go in a self-driving car. You get to go at a time and location of your choosing but you're still disempowered as a human driver, which at best removes a hobby from your life and at worst puts your life in the hands of a computer which may be hacked or tracks your location or is has a bug.

3. Driving by yourself, with the vehicle practically being an extension of yourself- total freedom. Being able to overtake etc, within the law.

1. Invest in public transport and give access to the city with cycles.
https://www.belgiantrain.be/en/tickets- ... train-bike

No matter how much money you throw at it, public transport will still be public transport and thus have the associated problems unless you give everyone free taxi passes.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 19-10061-3
2, while in a self driving car (or bus or train) you can do games, read books, write articles etc. No wasted time on travelling, extra free time to work, study, recreate.

I, like many other people, get travel sickness when doing those things as a passenger. And maybe I enjoy driving?

3. A vehicle which is polluting, noisy, kills animals and children and is prone to kill drivers in one sided accidents. The Trees/ buildings did not move into the path of the cars.

The language one uses, shapes our views on reality.
http://decorrespondent.fetchapp.com/get/efba54b1

You can say the same about self-driving cars.

[Ethel mermania]

1. They're dangerous if hacked
2. They take away your freedom
3. I'm not convinced that the technology works
4. I don't like the concept of AIs. I don't think we've had enough of an ethical discussion about AIs, self-driving cars bring us to closer to that
Need I go on?

We've definitely had a ton of ethical discussions about AI. Professionals in the field are very aware of the ethics of technology.

Because letting the people who's living depends on a technology decide the ethical implications of that technology is always a good idea.

[Thepeopl]

1. Invest in public transport and give access to the city with cycles.
https://www.belgiantrain.be/en/tickets- ... train-bike

No matter how much money you throw at it, public transport will still be public transport and thus have the associated problems unless you give everyone free taxi passes.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 19-10061-3
2, while in a self driving car (or bus or train) you can do games, read books, write articles etc. No wasted time on travelling, extra free time to work, study, recreate.

I, like many other people, get travel sickness when doing those things as a passenger. And maybe I enjoy driving?

3. A vehicle which is polluting, noisy, kills animals and children and is prone to kill drivers in one sided accidents. The Trees/ buildings did not move into the path of the cars.

The language one uses, shapes our views on reality.
http://decorrespondent.fetchapp.com/get/efba54b1

You can say the same about self-driving cars.

1, what are the problems of public transport? Its safe, clean, sociable. I love chatting with strangers. I must always face in the driving direction or I'll be motion sick as well. But reading books, listening music is very enjoyable.
I can knit or crochet or if I travel with children, play games with them without having to concentrate on other traffic.
When on holiday, I can watch the scenery, don't have to decipher strange traffic signs. I can shoot photos.

Traffic in the city can be daunting, have you ever tried to drive in Delhi?
I must say, I live in a city and have 2 bus stops 300 metres from my home. Every 6 minutes a bus stops there. (In the direction of the train station) . (In the other direction, you can go every 15 minutes to the surrounding villages and to the next city. And every 12 minutes to neighbourhoods in my city)
I can hop on the train every 15 minutes to any destination. Except to abroad, that's once every hour.

The OP states: should we ban urban vehicles. I say yes.
Make city centres nice and inhabitable. Let children play and plants grow.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9lib%27

https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/la ... =hootsuite

3, self driving vehicles will never tire, will never be distracted. They will stop when a child runs out to the road. The self driving car would be imo electric, with solar panels, so no emissions and very little noise. Yes the fine dust particles of the braking systems and the rubber tires will still be there.
But the ai will not be texting the spouse, won't be changing channels on the radio, will not watch the accident on the other lane.

80% of all American car drivers think they drive above average. They are better drivers than average car drivers.

https://www.smithlawco.com/blog/2017/de ... bove-aver/

And I know what you are saying, I like driving too. I love the roar of the engine when I accelerate. The vibration and feel of power. But I think before jumping into the car, to pick up my youngest from school, I'll take the bike with baby seat.
But when i have to pick up the children and adjoining have to visit the hospital or family in the countryside, I'll take the car.

[SD_Film Artists]

No matter how much money you throw at it, public transport will still be public transport and thus have the associated problems unless you give everyone free taxi passes.


I, like many other people, get travel sickness when doing those things as a passenger. And maybe I enjoy driving?



You can say the same about self-driving cars.

1, what are the problems of public transport? Its safe, clean, sociable.

You're right that they're safe, but clean? Even before covid-19 there's the risk of bedbugs in the seats along with god knows what else is in that fabric. Have you visited the Paris Metro? The whole place stinks of piss. You want/need to stand up in a bus? That means touching a pole that dozens of other people have touched.

As for the other problems, as mentioned earlier you're placed at the whim of a bus/train company who decide when and where you can travel. That can be ok if it's a common city route with less than 20 minutes of waiting but in more rural areas they can more or less decide if your commute is shit or not. Maybe you live in the countryside but you work in a city, which would still make it relevant to this thread (urban vehicles). It takes around 30 minutes to wait for the train back to the town I used to live in (I recently moved), and while 30 minutes isn't a huge amount of time it was still very liberating to be at a pub late at night knowing that I didn't have to keep looking at the clock to see when the best time is to start walking down to the train station, or if there's even a train at all after 11pm. I can just walk out, picking up my helmet and ride home at 50mph. The one advantage I'd have with the train is that I could drink as many alcoholic drinks as I wanted (within reason) rather than sticking to cola or alcohol free beers.

The OP states: should we ban urban vehicles. I say yes.
Make city centres nice and inhabitable. Let children play and plants grow.

Brroooom where does the race car go?? Nowhere because they're banned O_O

As for real performance vehicles, you could reserve the race car/bike for trackdays but then that's like saying- "why own a house when you can go to a hotel on the weekends instead?"

3, self driving vehicles will never tire, will never be distracted. They will stop when a child runs out to the road.

The debate is still open on how self-driving AIs will face trolley problems; ie who's life to sacrifice when it comes to making a choise.

The self driving car would be imo electric, with solar panels, so no emissions and very little noise.

You know you can buy an electric car today and drive it yourself.

But the ai will not be texting the spouse, won't be changing channels on the radio, will not watch the accident on the other lane.

That is a plus point, but then what if it gets hacked, gets a bug or thinks that you're on a completely different road- something which happens already with GPS systems.

[Purpelia]

As a software developer I must say that the idea of a self driving car scares me. Like rule #1 of software development is don't trust software because you know exactly what sort of clueless idiots are behind it.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

As a software developer I must say that the idea of a self driving car scares me. Like rule #1 of software development is don't trust software because you know exactly what sort of clueless idiots are behind it.

Don't trust software if you can't read the source, more like.

In the coverage of the Crew Dragon launch there was mention that a pad device was used as a control panel. Someone said roughly what you just said "oh no, that's so dangerous". But no: Crew Dragon runs on Linux!

[Nobel Hobos 2]

2. It removes a hobby from your life. Granted.

3. It's not "total" freedom. Even if there were no other drivers to worry about, even if there were no road rules, your freedom would still be limited by the edges of the road. Drive into a tree, you're dead: the only time you ever have zero freedom.

Are you saying that I should get a bus or a self-driving car just because a normal car doesn't have the maneuverability of a helicopter? Also there is such thing as 4x4, supermoto, ADV bikes and scramblers.

I'm saying you'll get a self-driving car a few decades from now because it will be cheaper for you (your old car will be heavily taxed and replacing it with another self-driving car more expensive than you have a taste for ... or outright banned). You'll probably have been in other people's self-drivers long before then, and I doubt you'll really miss the satisfying work of driving.

Do you scrub your clothes because it's the best way to get them clean? Do you ride a horse to work to avoid paying for fuel? Do you build a fire in your kitchen stove to make a cup of tea?

All these things were once necessary work. But when the automated version is easily available and you've experienced it a few times, doing the work yourself loses its appeal.

Riding a horse I suppose, still has appeal but it's just a hobby. You'll still be able to drive your self-driver as a hobby, you'll just have to do it on private property.

Overtaking feels like freedom to you. Couldn't it also be the opposite: if you want to get there on time and there's a tractor ahead of you, you HAVE to overtake.

At least you can overtake, whereas a self-driving car may choose to stay behind the tractor unless it was going slow enough for the car to make a safe overtake within the speed limit.

A self-driving car would obviously overtake if it was safe to do so. I expect that pods would announce their position (not necessarily identity) through a network, so they could safely overtake a tractor even if the view ahead was short. Ie they could safely overtake in situations where it wouldn't be safe for you as a human driver. Tho, that's well in the future when every car on the road is self-driving.

I notice the implication that you find overtaking exciting because you do it unsafely. Don't go there, you're just building the case for human drivers to be banned.

[SD_Film Artists]

Are you saying that I should get a bus or a self-driving car just because a normal car doesn't have the maneuverability of a helicopter? Also there is such thing as 4x4, supermoto, ADV bikes and scramblers.

I'm saying you'll get a self-driving car a few decades from now because it will be cheaper for you (your old car will be heavily taxed and replacing it with another self-driving car more expensive than you have a taste for ... or outright banned). You'll probably have been in other people's self-drivers long before then, and I doubt you'll really miss the satisfying work of driving.

I'm not sure how that addresses the point of having total freedom. And why would traditional cars be heavily taxed if self-driving cars are so great? Because it's in the government's interest rather than your interest. That would be believable though; the government avoiding protests by not technically banning traditional cars but heavily taxing them so that only the rich or upper-middle class can easily have them.

Do you scrub your clothes because it's the best way to get them clean? Do you ride a horse to work to avoid paying for fuel? Do you build a fire in your kitchen stove to make a cup of tea?

All these things were once necessary work. But when the automated version is easily available and you've experienced it a few times, doing the work yourself loses its appeal.

Those were chores. Driving isn't a chore unless you either don't enjoy driving or you're stuck in traffic. It would be nice to have a swichable self-driving car which lets you drive it but allows you to switch to self-driving mode if you're in a complicated busy junction, a traffic jam or some other scenario where it's no longer enjoyable. Depending on the legality of it, you could just buy a self-driving car and them remove the AI yourself. For example, in the EU and UK all new motorcycles have to be installed with ABS, but it's not illegal to remove it so some people do* as the ABS system can be counter-productive even on modern bikes.

*that particular example is from Canada

I wonder how self-driving motorcycles would work. There are some examples already produced with gyroscopes but it wouldn't be like a self-driving car where you can just sit back and fall asleep, as you'd still have to lean around the corners just as a pillion passenger has to.

You'll still be able to drive your self-driver as a hobby, you'll just have to do it on private property.

As I said to Thepeopl, that's like saying- "why own a house when you can go to a hotel on the weekends instead?"

A self-driving car would obviously overtake if it was safe to do so.

Would they though? There's already talk of speed limiters being introduced which -unless swiched off- will prevent safe overtakes from happening. As is typical with bureaucratic road laws, the de-facto ban/restriction on overtaking is from a lack of foresight (or basic common sense) from the proposer rather than being the intentional purpose of the law. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47715415

Road safety charity Brake called it a "landmark day", but the AA said "a little speed" helped with overtaking or joining motorways.

The AA thinks the system might have the unintended consequence of making drivers more reckless, not less.

AA president Edmund King said there was no doubt that new in-car technology could save lives, adding there was "a good case" for autonomous emergency braking to be fitted in all cars.

"When it comes to intelligent speed adaptation, the case is not so clear," he said. "The best speed limiter is the driver's right foot.

I notice the implication that you find overtaking exciting because you do it unsafely. Don't go there, you're just building the case for human drivers to be banned.

Who said anything about doing it unsafely? As in the example given above, if anything it's the self-driving car which is being unsafe.

[Purpelia]

Don't trust software if you can't read the source, more like.

In the coverage of the Crew Dragon launch there was mention that a pad device was used as a control panel. Someone said roughly what you just said "oh no, that's so dangerous". But no: Crew Dragon runs on Linux!

Having the source be open and readable is honestly pretty much worthless. Just because you can read the code does not mean you have the necessary domain knowledge to make sense of it or figure out errors in logic. And whilst sure, you can go through it and pick it apart for unchecked null pointers and the like those aren't what I am worried about.

Honestly I think the whole open source thing is just an overrated fad. Yes, it has its good sides in that it allows large numbers of people to work together on a common project. But in terms of fostering quality of code in my view it does absolutely nothing. And the idea that all these contributors are going to be finding and fixing bugs is not really true either. After all, who actually enjoys fixing bugs? We enjoy adding features, tweaking stuff etc. Unless there is a bug that irks me personally and particularly to the point that I absolutely have to get it fixed I ain't going to go diving into the code of some open project to do so.

[Tarockanien]

This thread completely ignores the real problem, which isn´t pollution or the lacking of space, etc. in big cities. It´s big cities themselves, and the "modern life style" among a few other reasons, which encourages (or sometimes even forces) more and more people to live in sprawling urban (big cities) areas. It should be discussed first, why so many people tend to prefer big cities and how to counter this, before discussing the relatively marginal problem of "traffic problems" in such areas, I guess.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I'm saying you'll get a self-driving car a few decades from now because it will be cheaper for you (your old car will be heavily taxed and replacing it with another self-driving car more expensive than you have a taste for ... or outright banned). You'll probably have been in other people's self-drivers long before then, and I doubt you'll really miss the satisfying work of driving.

I'm not sure how that addresses the point of having total freedom.

Well I thought you abandoned the silly idea that driving is "total freedom".

*looks*

Are you saying that I should get a bus or a self-driving car just because a normal car doesn't have the maneuverability of a helicopter? Also there is such thing as 4x4, supermoto, ADV bikes and scramblers.

You admit a normal car does not have the maneuverability of a helicopter. And since helicopters have less than total freedom (try landing one next to a tree) you have admitted that driving a car has less than total freedom.

I was just trying to continue my line of thought from where you distracted me with "total freedom" nonsense.

And why would traditional cars be heavily taxed if self-driving cars are so great? Because it's in the government's interest rather than your interest. That would be believable though; the government avoiding protests by not technically banning traditional cars but heavily taxing them so that only the rich or upper-middle class can easily have them.

Sure, I'm not ashamed of limiting ownership of a dangerous and antisocial luxury to the rich. That's a necessary step on the way to banning them outright.

Suppose we were to run this in reverse. Helicopters you say provide more freedom than cars. So let's make them more widely available by (somehow) making them cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate. Now the boss can land and park on the roof of an office block but no-one else can. What do we do about that? Everyone at work can afford a helicopter, doesn't mean they can actually use it. Except on weekends, take off from their own (flat) roof and fly out into the country ... maybe now you see where I was going with "you'll still be able to drive yourself on private property".

Roads are crowded already. When pods are better there will be even more traffic: small goods transport, poor people who currently use public transport, the old, children, they'll all be crowding the roads and there will be enormous public pressure on government to convert two lane roads to three lane roads. And three lane roads into four or five lane roads etc.

But owner-driven cars will no longer be safe or even practical on those roads: human drivers can't safely drive with following distances under half a second or left and right clearances of 30 cm. Pods will, and it won't take many huge pileups caused by slow and clumsy human drivers to get the law changed. For the next few years you'll have to take back streets, then the day will come when there's no route for you. Back streets will be narrowed to one (pod) lane to make way for greenery or for new buildings, or widened from two to three (pod) lanes

Do you scrub your clothes because it's the best way to get them clean? Do you ride a horse to work to avoid paying for fuel? Do you build a fire in your kitchen stove to make a cup of tea?

All these things were once necessary work. But when the automated version is easily available and you've experienced it a few times, doing the work yourself loses its appeal.

Those were chores. Driving isn't a chore unless you either don't enjoy driving or you're stuck in traffic.

You enjoy driving and don't experience it as a chore. So what? You think people didn't enjoy riding horses or riding in a carriage, you think they didn't experience that as freedom?

That there are benefits to the activity doesn't mean it won't quickly change into a chore when an alternative with the same benefits is available.

It would be nice to have a swichable self-driving car which lets you drive it but allows you to switch to self-driving mode if you're in a complicated busy junction, a traffic jam or some other scenario where it's no longer enjoyable.

No problem. That's a transitional phase and maybe it will remain an option forever.

Past a certain point (of other people adopting pods) I think there will be times when the "manual drive" switch won't work. You'll be on an auto-only road and nobody including yourself wants any sloppy human driving thankyou. But you want to drive yourself on a country road or a quiet city road with no pods about, go for it.

Depending on the legality of it, you could just buy a self-driving car and them remove the AI yourself. For example, in the EU and UK all new motorcycles have to be installed with ABS, but it's not illegal to remove it so some people do* as the ABS system can be counter-productive even on modern bikes.

*that particular example is from Canada

I wonder how self-driving motorcycles would work. There are some examples already produced with gyroscopes but it wouldn't be like a self-driving car where you can just sit back and fall asleep, as you'd still have to lean around the corners just as a pillion passenger has to.

You'll still be able to drive your self-driver as a hobby, you'll just have to do it on private property.

As I said to Thepeopl, that's like saying- "why own a house when you can go to a hotel on the weekends instead?"

A self-driving car would obviously overtake if it was safe to do so.

Would they though? There's already talk of speed limiters being introduced which -unless swiched off- will prevent safe overtakes from happening. As is typical with bureaucratic road laws, the de-facto ban/restriction on overtaking is from a lack of foresight (or basic common sense) from the proposer rather than being the intentional purpose of the law. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47715415

Road safety charity Brake called it a "landmark day", but the AA said "a little speed" helped with overtaking or joining motorways.

The AA thinks the system might have the unintended consequence of making drivers more reckless, not less.

AA president Edmund King said there was no doubt that new in-car technology could save lives, adding there was "a good case" for autonomous emergency braking to be fitted in all cars.

"When it comes to intelligent speed adaptation, the case is not so clear," he said. "The best speed limiter is the driver's right foot.

I notice the implication that you find overtaking exciting because you do it unsafely. Don't go there, you're just building the case for human drivers to be banned.

Who said anything about doing it unsafely? As in the example given above, if anything it's the self-driving car which is being unsafe.

There's some worthwhile speculation in there, but I don't feel obliged to reply to it because everything you say about safety does not apply to self-driving pods. Pods driving with other pods will be enormously safer, and pods driving with human-driven cars will also be safer than the cars themselves. The greatest threat to anyone's life will be humans driving their own cars.

Ten or fifteen years from now pods will be very safe in every situation except human-driver error, and you'll see the rationale emerge for taxing human-driven cars. Injury to other people and damage to their pods is an externality the drivers will have to pay for. It really doesn't matter if it's called insurance premiums or a tax, I'd prefer to nationalize it (ie a tax) but only because I'm always like that. There would have to be an insurance requirement or a tax on pods too, but it would be much lower due to their lower risk.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

This thread completely ignores the real problem, which isn´t pollution or the lacking of space, etc. in big cities. It´s big cities themselves, and the "modern life style" among a few other reasons, which encourages (or sometimes even forces) more and more people to live in sprawling urban (big cities) areas. It should be discussed first, why so many people tend to prefer big cities and how to counter this, before discussing the relatively marginal problem of "traffic problems" in such areas, I guess.

People move to cities in every country I know of, and it's still progressing even in highly urbanized societies.

Imo people are just herd animals. There are economic pressures causing urbanization, but I think it would happen anyway. People just want to.

I think any argument you can make for "decentralization" or such has to be about changing incentives from the Big City to towns (which then become small cities). There's no future in villages or even small towns. But maybe lots and lots of small cities is a gettable goal.

[Thepeopl]

I'm saying you'll get a self-driving car a few decades from now because it will be cheaper for you (your old car will be heavily taxed and replacing it with another self-driving car more expensive than you have a taste for ... or outright banned). You'll probably have been in other people's self-drivers long before then, and I doubt you'll really miss the satisfying work of driving.

I'm not sure how that addresses the point of having total freedom. And why would traditional cars be heavily taxed if self-driving cars are so great? Because it's in the government's interest rather than your interest. That would be believable though; the government avoiding protests by not technically banning traditional cars but heavily taxing them so that only the rich or upper-middle class can easily have them.

Do you scrub your clothes because it's the best way to get them clean? Do you ride a horse to work to avoid paying for fuel? Do you build a fire in your kitchen stove to make a cup of tea?

All these things were once necessary work. But when the automated version is easily available and you've experienced it a few times, doing the work yourself loses its appeal.

Those were chores. Driving isn't a chore unless you either don't enjoy driving or you're stuck in traffic. It would be nice to have a swichable self-driving car which lets you drive it but allows you to switch to self-driving mode if you're in a complicated busy junction, a traffic jam or some other scenario where it's no longer enjoyable. Depending on the legality of it, you could just buy a self-driving car and them remove the AI yourself. For example, in the EU and UK all new motorcycles have to be installed with ABS, but it's not illegal to remove it so some people do* as it can be counter-productive even on modern examples.

*that particular example is from Canada

I wonder how self-driving motorcycles would work. There are some examples already produced with gyroscopes but it wouldn't be like a self-driving car where you can just sit back and fall asleep, as you'd still have to lean around the corners just as a pillion passenger has to.

You'll still be able to drive your self-driver as a hobby, you'll just have to do it on private property.

As I said to Thepeopl, that's like saying- "why own a house when you can go to a hotel on the weekends instead?"

At least you can overtake, whereas a self-driving car may choose to stay behind the tractor unless it was going slow enough for the car to make a safe overtake within the speed limit.

A self-driving car would obviously overtake if it was safe to do so.

Would they though? There's already talk of speed limiters being introduced which -unless swiched off- will prevent safe overtakes from happening. As is typical with bureaucratic road laws, the de-facto ban/restriction on overtaking is from a lack of foresight (or basic common sense) from the proposer rather than an intentional step to ban them. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47715415

Road safety charity Brake called it a "landmark day", but the AA said "a little speed" helped with overtaking or joining motorways.

The AA thinks the system might have the unintended consequence of making drivers more reckless, not less.

AA president Edmund King said there was no doubt that new in-car technology could save lives, adding there was "a good case" for autonomous emergency braking to be fitted in all cars.

"When it comes to intelligent speed adaptation, the case is not so clear," he said. "The best speed limiter is the driver's right foot.

I notice the implication that you find overtaking exciting because you do it unsafely. Don't go there, you're just building the case for human drivers to be banned.

Who said anything about doing it unsafely? As in the example given above, if anything it's the self-driving car which is being unsafe.

A lot of "safety measure " have made the world more dangerous. To make streets that separate traffic for speed differences, is telling automobile users it is ok to speed. Speed kills.
Theres a formula for it. P(v) = 1/ 1+exp(6.9-0.09v)
v is speed of the vehicle, P is how big the chance is you'll actually be killed.

Safer streets lead to more risky behaviour in drivers.
https://youtu.be/Ra_0DgnJ1uQ

When human drivers feel safer, they'll engage in more risky behaviour like speeding, texting/ phone calling while driving.

If we want to solve traffic jams, the solution isn't building more roads. Because more roads attract more traffic.
If you want/ have to live further away from your work, you'll pollute more for people living nearby your work (those who can't afford a house in the rural areas)

So, p+r parking places outside of the city and free commuter lines/ buses to go into the city.

[SD_Film Artists]

I'm not sure how that addresses the point of having total freedom.

Well I thought you abandoned the silly idea that driving is "total freedom".

*looks*

Are you saying that I should get a bus or a self-driving car just because a normal car doesn't have the maneuverability of a helicopter? Also there is such thing as 4x4, supermoto, ADV bikes and scramblers.

You admit a normal car does not have the maneuverability of a helicopter. And since helicopters have less than total freedom (try landing one next to a tree) you have admitted that driving a car has less than total freedom.

I was just trying to continue my line of thought from where you distracted me with "total freedom" nonsense.

Why drive onto/up a tree when you can just drive through the forest? (which was exactly what Fort Nine was doing in the video). By "total freedom" I don't mean that you literally have to drive over every single centimeter of ground; I meant that you, as a sentient being, have the freedom to go anywhere at any time rather than being treated like a child by an AI. Do I really have to point that out or was that a strawman?

Sure, I'm not ashamed of limiting ownership of a dangerous and antisocial luxury to the rich. That's a necessary step on the way to banning them outright.

Suppose we were to run this in reverse. Helicopters you say provide more freedom than cars. So let's make them more widely available by (somehow) making them cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate. Now the boss can land and park on the roof of an office block but no-one else can. What do we do about that? Everyone at work can afford a helicopter, doesn't mean they can actually use it. Except on weekends, take off from their own (flat) roof and fly out into the country ... maybe now you see where I was going with "you'll still be able to drive yourself on private property".

Roads are crowded already. When pods are better there will be even more traffic: small goods transport, poor people who currently use public transport, the old, children, they'll all be crowding the roads and there will be enormous public pressure on government to convert two lane roads to three lane roads. And three lane roads into four or five lane roads etc.

But owner-driven cars will no longer be safe or even practical on those roads: human drivers can't safely drive with following distances under half a second or left and right clearances of 30 cm. Pods will, and it won't take many huge pileups caused by slow and clumsy human drivers to get the law changed. For the next few years you'll have to take back streets, then the day will come when there's no route for you. Back streets will be narrowed to one (pod) lane to make way for greenery or for new buildings, or widened from two to three (pod) lanes

You don't seem to understand the house/hotel example- or you do understand but just don't care which is really the issue with self-driving cars; they're cars made by people who don't like cars. To explain the example further; one is a lifestyle, the other is an occasional treat. If you stick vehicles on trackdays then it's no longer a form of transport but instead just a toy.

You enjoy driving and don't experience it as a chore. So what?

As mentioned above, the lack of care is part of the downside to this whole idea.

There's some worthwhile speculation in there, but I don't feel obliged to reply to it because everything you say about safety does not apply to self-driving pods. Pods driving with other pods will be enormously safer, and pods driving with human-driven cars will also be safer than the cars themselves. The greatest threat to anyone's life will be humans driving their own cars.

Ten or fifteen years from now pods will be very safe in every situation except human-driver error, and you'll see the rationale emerge for taxing human-driven cars. Injury to other people and damage to their pods is an externality the drivers will have to pay for. It really doesn't matter if it's called insurance premiums or a tax, I'd prefer to nationalize it (ie a tax) but only because I'm always like that. There would have to be an insurance requirement or a tax on pods too, but it would be much lower due to their lower risk.

I was pointing out how, even with modern systems, AI safety measures sound good on paper but when it comes to real life they can be counter-productive and dangerous.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Well I thought you abandoned the silly idea that driving is "total freedom".

*looks*

Are you saying that I should get a bus or a self-driving car just because a normal car doesn't have the maneuverability of a helicopter? Also there is such thing as 4x4, supermoto, ADV bikes and scramblers.

You admit a normal car does not have the maneuverability of a helicopter. And since helicopters have less than total freedom (try landing one next to a tree) you have admitted that driving a car has less than total freedom.

I was just trying to continue my line of thought from where you distracted me with "total freedom" nonsense.

Why drive onto/up a tree when you can just drive through the forest? (which was exactly what Fort Nine was doing in the video). By "total freedom" I don't mean that you literally have to drive over every single centimeter of ground; I meant that you, as a sentient being, have the freedom to go anywhere at any time rather than being treated like a child by an AI. Do I really have to point that out or was that a strawman?

Taking what you say literally is not a strawman. Now that you've given your definition of "total freedom" ... I still reject it. I think you're trying so hard to express what you love about cars that you've actually fooled yourself. You know the freedom of being able to go anywhere in your car is bounded in several ways: as long as your car is working, as long as you have fuel or money, as long as there is a road where you want to go*, as long as there isn't a sea in the way, as long as you're not drunk, as long as there isn't too much traffic.

Most of these limitations apply to a pod too. Poor people would get vouchers, so for them (not you) the fuel or money limit wouldn't apply. You would be able to travel drunk. You would be able to travel while asleep. You wouldn't need a license. You don't see these as enhancements to freedom, because from the start you've had an idiosyncratic definition of "freedom" based on how driving makes you feel, and you will never allow for a pod which could give you all the same opportunities and then some, to be "freedom" in the same sense.

So you haven't dropped your idea of freedom I know, but at least consider saying "power" instead. Be able to drive (knowing how, having authority to, having a car to drive and having fuel for it) empowers you. And the only difference between that and pod 'driving' is the way it would feel.

The same empowerment and more. But perhaps lacking the feeling of empowerment ... which is nothing more than you exercising a skill you have.

Sure, I'm not ashamed of limiting ownership of a dangerous and antisocial luxury to the rich. That's a necessary step on the way to banning them outright.

Suppose we were to run this in reverse. Helicopters you say provide more freedom than cars. So let's make them more widely available by (somehow) making them cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate. Now the boss can land and park on the roof of an office block but no-one else can. What do we do about that? Everyone at work can afford a helicopter, doesn't mean they can actually use it. Except on weekends, take off from their own (flat) roof and fly out into the country ... maybe now you see where I was going with "you'll still be able to drive yourself on private property".

Roads are crowded already. When pods are better there will be even more traffic: small goods transport, poor people who currently use public transport, the old, children, they'll all be crowding the roads and there will be enormous public pressure on government to convert two lane roads to three lane roads. And three lane roads into four or five lane roads etc.

But owner-driven cars will no longer be safe or even practical on those roads: human drivers can't safely drive with following distances under half a second or left and right clearances of 30 cm. Pods will, and it won't take many huge pileups caused by slow and clumsy human drivers to get the law changed. For the next few years you'll have to take back streets, then the day will come when there's no route for you. Back streets will be narrowed to one (pod) lane to make way for greenery or for new buildings, or widened from two to three (pod) lanes

You don't seem to understand the house/hotel example- or you do understand but just don't care which is really the issue with self-driving cars; they're cars made by people who don't like cars. To explain the example further; one is a lifestyle, the other is an occasional treat. If you stick vehicles on trackdays then it's no longer a form of transport but instead just a toy.

This seems self-contradictory:
Pods aren't cars because they aren't made with love.
You are virtuous because you drive as a lifestyle.
But people who love their car even more than you love yours, they're just dandies at the track.

I love my little car. She's got dents all over her*, I don't keep the inside particularly clean, but she's got a good motor and turns on a postage stamp. I also enjoy driving, usually. Crawling in traffic or driving in heavy rain aren't fun.

Does that seem strange? Or hypocritical? That I talk up how good pods are going to be, that they'll be qualitatively and quantatively BETTER than self-driving cars, and all the while I quite like driving, and will miss it when I can't any more?

No. Better is better. Anything that is only fun because you have no choice, becomes a chore when you do.

*All but one were there when I bought her. The only 'accident' I've ever had was a little scrape backing into my own driveway, complacency I guess.

You enjoy driving and don't experience it as a chore. So what?

As mentioned above, the lack of care is part of the downside to this whole idea.

There's some worthwhile speculation in there, but I don't feel obliged to reply to it because everything you say about safety does not apply to self-driving pods. Pods driving with other pods will be enormously safer, and pods driving with human-driven cars will also be safer than the cars themselves. The greatest threat to anyone's life will be humans driving their own cars.

Ten or fifteen years from now pods will be very safe in every situation except human-driver error, and you'll see the rationale emerge for taxing human-driven cars. Injury to other people and damage to their pods is an externality the drivers will have to pay for. It really doesn't matter if it's called insurance premiums or a tax, I'd prefer to nationalize it (ie a tax) but only because I'm always like that. There would have to be an insurance requirement or a tax on pods too, but it would be much lower due to their lower risk.

I was pointing out how, even with modern systems, AI safety measures sound good on paper but when it comes to real life they can be counter-productive and dangerous.

Modern systems don't really have AI. Actual AI doesn't even seem like a good idea to me, in any driverless car, since AI can be taught bad habits. I'm concerned the pods would learn from each other, and there would be increasingly edgy driving all over until one day lots of pods would start having the same kind of accidents. But who knows, AI could advance enormously in ten years.

You probably mean software. Yes there will be software failures, particularly if companies continue with the same foolish "competition" plan where each company makes every part of their car and also their own software. Competition like that worked in Old Tech (pardon me, including cars) but sooner or later they're realize that the software for pods should be a competitive market of its own. Like how different brands of phone all run Android, different brands of pod will all run the same basic software.

I cannot honestly say that pods will never have an accident (due to software failure or any other failure). They will probably run over a cat or two, and run over people when there is no other choice. But they WILL be safer than human drivers: it's a really low bar.

My final pitch is that there are bad drivers on the road. You've no doubt seen them, nearly causing accidents, actually causing accidents, or even dying right in front of you. Surely you want those drivers, if not yourself, kicking back in a self-driving car instead of endangering your life?

[Australian rePublic]

How does it not take away freedom? For example, which option is more free:

1: taking a train (at least in the UK) are obscenely overpriced and you have to go to a set destination and at a time dictated by the whims of the train company, which can sometimes gaps of an hour or more *if* they're not on strike.

2. Go in a self-driving car. You get to go at a time and location of your choosing but you're still disempowered as a human driver, which at best removes a hobby from your life and at worst puts your life in the hands of a computer which may be hacked or tracks your location or is has a bug.

3. Driving by yourself, with the vehicle practically being an extension of yourself- total freedom. Being able to overtake etc, within the law.

2. It removes a hobby from your life. Granted.

3. It's not "total" freedom. Even if there were no other drivers to worry about, even if there were no road rules, your freedom would still be limited by the edges of the road. Drive into a tree, you're dead: the only time you ever have zero freedom.

Overtaking feels like freedom to you. Couldn't it also be the opposite: if you want to get there on time and there's a tractor ahead of you, you HAVE to overtake.

I can get in my car at any time in any place and drive to any part of Australia , turning whenever, pulling over whenever I want, changing my mind whenever I want, etc, without a computer tracking my every move, without a computer knowing where I'm going, or without even requiring a destination. Ignoring Covid, what's to stop me from getting in my car right now and just driving for few hours, without having a destination in mind. I can't do that with a self-driving car. Granted, I am still limited to where roads physically are, but with nearly 830,000 kilometres, it's bearly a limitation