A good observation from previous threads: “Whenever utility cycling is discussed on the internet, suddenly everyone has to move their fridge 100 miles in the rain”
Yeah, it depends on the context. Is the thread saying “we need to build out far more cycling infrastructure”? If so, no argument.
Or is the thread one of the naiive ones trying to argue about how we can completely eliminate cars? Then people start bringing up the edge cases that still require cars.
Or is the thread one of the naiive ones trying to argue about how we can completely eliminate cars?
You say that as if those threads are actually a common thing, and not just a strawman accusation from the fevered dreams of car-brains.
Go into a thread on autonomous cars and all you’ll hear is about how they’re useless and we don’t need them because we’ll just eliminate all cars before they’re ready.
I have literally never seen that argument made.
Usually, what I see in those threads are a whole bunch of people arguing that autonomous cars would be some kind of silver-bullet panacea for traffic.
Frankly, what you wrote sounds like a strawman misinterpretation of an argument I myself make: I argue that autonomous cars are not a solution, but not “because we’ll just eliminate all cars before they’re ready.” They’re not a solution simply because they’re still cars, and therefore take up the same grossly excessive amount of space as non-autonomous cars do.
Congratulations that you haven’t, that’s evidently because youre not in there correcting people when they claim that autonomous cars aren’t a solution.
As long as cars are on the roads and humans are driving them they will continue to kill and maim people. Autonomous cars are the only remotely viable solution to that. They might not be fully ready for all situations yet, but they will be ready on the scale of a decade or two, whereas reorienting north American society to minimize human drivers (get everyone to move out of their homes in the suburbs and country) will take literally generations.
Your failure to provide a reliable source for your claims is not my problem.
If you cannot provide a reliable source of your claims, your claim will be dismissed.
They’re not a solution simply because they’re still cars, and therefore take up the same grossly excessive amount of space as non-autonomous cars do.
Yeah, the only things autonomous cars might reduce are:
- Parking, but only if we forego our current private ownership model and everyone starts doing self-driving robo-taxis everywhere (unlikely)
- Road fatalities, but only if the self-driving tech proves statistically better than human drivers in a wide range of conditions (jury is still out)
It’s the same fundamental problem that electric cars have: geometry. Cars – even if electric and self-driving – are simply grossly inefficient at moving people for the amount of land they require:
Except that the jury is not “still out” on number two, it is simply a matter of time, engineering, and training before they are statistically safer than humans.
Waymo’s cars are already safer than humans in their limited conditions.
Your failure to provide a reliable source for your claims is not my problem.
If you cannot provide a reliable source of your claims, your claim will be dismissed.
Those who depend on cars would benefit too when they are the only ones in cars
Say this to anybody who will listen, please! I’ve been using it on my car guy friends, and they’re receiving it loud and clear. They love the idea of having the roads all to themselves, many of the actual enthusiast types do anyways.
This is basically how I like to put it:
Scooters. Next argument.
Scooters without the ability to take them anywhere is a stupid solution.
Clearly I’m being misunderstood.
THESE scooters:
Yes, I understand.
tiny electric cars you can drive onto trains and boats
A much better idea than some teslas in a short tunnel.
![[meme] There is no one-size-fits-all solution to transportation](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/0bfe1df9-1b6b-414f-88b3-4e7d57514682.webp){kind=link}