The Fight for the Right to Drive
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
Requiring cars to have wheels is also premature, because there are currently no cars that are safe to operate purely in self-driving mode with no backup driver, but once (if) there are fully self driving cars, people who can't manually drive will probably want to buy them. At this point, it initially may be necessary to at least disable the manually driving functionality in this case, if not outright remove the steering wheel, for safety (e.g when the car is being operated by children, people without licenses, seniors, etc.) and once this is possible it would be somewhat absurd for manual car aficionados to argue that simply making cars available in these configurations is somehow restricting people's freedoms.
Honestly, I suspect that 99% of drivers don't actually enjoy driving and will adopt self-driving cars as soon as they are inexpensively available, and in the long term removing the manual controls will probably provide more room for making self-driving cars more comfortable (making the seats recline like beds with a suitable safety harness, etc.).
I guess I am the 1%, then. Driving is one of the few activities where I can really clear my head. I support the goals of the Human Driving Association. I also disagree that it is too early, as many people already see it as inevitable that self-driving will be illegal.
Why not just take a walk?
>> When not do something entirely different altogether?
Gotta love HN. For the sake of being Captain Obvious: people who like moving at fast speeds probably won't get the same enjoyment out of moving at slow speeds.
As far as clearing the head goes, I heard from many people that they get into a kind of flow state while their hands have something to do while experiencing the effect of this activity. For some, it's playing the piano, listening to the sound, and getting lost in the thought. For others, it's operating a vehicle and seeing the lights whiz by. Different strokes for different folks, you know.
Yeah sports aren't transportation infrastructure, and most forms of transportation infrastructure are perfectly useful to let people "clear their heads." This goes for walking as well as it does sitting on a bus or train. Just because the way the world is now put you in a habit of doing a thing doesn't mean the world needs to stand still so you can never have to change.
This is like saying "Riding horses is one of the few ways I can clear my head." Sure, if you really love it go to a paddock. But that's not what we're building our cities around anymore because "clearing your head" isn't really what we design people's commutes around.
Ugh, what a stupid comment. Yeah sure, let me not only have 1 car, but now 2 cars, a trailer to legally transport the manual car. Then go on a boring as hell, flat, circle. This is not at all the same as say driving around a mountainous region, or along the coast. You can go fuck yourself with your regulated "track".
This is not a good approach.
You mean like roads and highways?
[1] in this context: they're also used for horses, dogs, humans on foot etc). The
My idea is simple: If, in an era when self-driving cars are the norm, you choose to drive and you hit someone, that's it. It's First Degree/Premeditated Homicide if you killed them, or the highest possible degree of Aggravated Assault if you didn't. You did something deliberately contrary to the norm, which was significantly more dangerous to everyone else, and, as a direct result, you caused them death or permanent damage. You can't rely on the excuse of needing to drive yourself, as you can now, so the penalties go up proportionately.
> When a person unintentionally kills another, whether or not a gun was used, they can be charged with manslaughter, which is a felony. Manslaughter is frequently referred to as criminally negligent homicide, as that name more closely mirrors the elements of a manslaughter charge. To be found guilty of manslaughter, a person has to die as a result of a defendant's inherently dangerous actions or actions taken with reckless disregard.
> Typical penalties for a manslaughter conviction include at least one year in jail, and can be much worse if the conduct that led to the death merit such. For example, a repeat drunk driver that causes a death is likely to face a harsher sentence than a recently victimized elderly man who, instinctively, accidentally shoots someone they believe to be a robber.
And I say the penalties should be worse because cars would be less obviously dangerous than guns in an era when most cars are self-driving. In short, a gun is a gun, and people know what guns are. If someone is waving a firearm around, well, most people who have competent faculties know that that's dangerous. In the era I'm foreseeing, which I think is the era most of us in this thread are foreseeing, a car is no longer as inherently dangerous as they are now, unless someone has made the conscious choice to make it that dangerous again by driving it manually.
I also support greatly increased penalties for DUI, but that's going a bit afield.
Anyway, barring a constitutional amendment, you can't pass a law now that will prevent a law banning manual driving from being passed in the future, so I think it's sort of a moot point.
So it's probably not necessary to worry about human drivers being illegal, but you might see cars without key safety features become illegal the same way seatbelts and airbags are required today.
So no more riding the shoulder, automated enforcement of traffic laws (so no speeding, no rolling stops, must yield at a yield sign, etc.).
Whether you're pro- or anti-driving, the debate is going to be carried out in public for years, not just after the technology is perfected. And likewise for whatever other sort of freedom-vs-safety issues that come up with technology.
But now this fucking "right to drive" thing is actually becoming a fucking reality. The future is, simply cyberpunk. Help me, I'm getting headaches.
1.25 million people die per year from auto accidents in the world with as many as 20-50 million additional people injured or disabled.
Source: https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/
The average car utilization is less than 4.5%. For over 95% of the time, most cars are just sitting there doing nothing.
Source: https://www.reinventingparking.org/2013/02/cars-are-parked-9...
Cars are the second largest expense for most people with the cost of the car, cost of maintenance, registration, insurance, parking, etc. coming only behind their residence in terms of cost.
Manually driven cars are a wasteful luxury that kill over a million people per year. I can't wait until they go away.
This is roughly true of bikes as well, but I've never seen it used as an argument against cycling.
There is one important difference: Bikes are much smaller than cars so they take up less space when parked. But I haven't seen that mentioned in this context.
I am a cyclist for what it's worth.
I do realize I'm pretty lucky to be in that situation, but for safety reasons I'm a big fan of generally having more dedicated bike paths or at least barrier-separated bike lanes around town. In a lot of Asian and European cities it is pretty standard and it massively improves safety.
My impression from self-driving car advocates is that they are okay with cycling, e.g., see here:
https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/
> Cities shall prioritize walking, cycling, public transport and other efficient shared mobility
The same thing will happen with autonomous cars. When the roads are fully autonomous the cars will be going maybe twice as fast as they are now, and much safer at the same time. For people who love driving manually for fun, there will be "auto parks" just like the horse parks of today.
There are horse parks as well. Some people ride their bike on the road for fun (not to be confused with those who ride for some other purpose), some people ride trails for fun.
http://www.2112.net/powerwindows/transcripts/19731100roadand...
That anticipates the experience every Prius owner encounters once in a while from lifted pickups.
Fortyfive years ago.
Suppose, say, you and a friend would like to do some street racing against each other. You could tell the system, and it could make some minor adjustments to traffic timing to clear a course for you and your friend to race on, and then switch your cars to manual control. (Actually, it wouldn't have to clear your whole course. It really just needs a buffer around your cars).
During the race, the self-driving system in your cars could monitor your driving, and take over if you are starting to lose control, where "lose control" is defined as put the car in a state that the self-driving system cannot safely stop from.
If the self-driving systems are good enough that they are better at extreme driving than you are, then you'd be able to push your limits in manual mode, because the self-driving system would only have to intervene if you've pushed beyond your skill level and would be heading for a crash.
-Soundaktor. this is a tiny plastic speaker mounted in the footwell of most Volkswagen cars thats designed to make fake engine noises. The idea being, if the car sounds aggressive, people will enjoy it. Ford uses these as well, and if they die they will trigger an ODB code and a trip to the dealership to fix/replace.
- engine auto-off/on. This is a feature that originally showed up on Mercedes trucks to prevent drivers from idling in docks or streets. They extended it to their luxury cars, and now most high end cars to this. The idea being that if you stop at a red light, the engine shuts off to "save gas." The only thing this feature does is halve the life of your starter motor and battery.
It is on major roads, which makes it impossible/impractical to use horse a legit mode of transportation.
I'd believe the impediment to that will be not the regulation, but lack of horse-support infrastructure along the way (inns with stables and feeding stations, blacksmiths who could reshoe your horse if needed, etc).
I highly doubt that the number horse-accessible roads has declined since John Adams times. We really have built a lot more roads since then, even allocating a small percentage to horses would be way more than was available back than.
TL;DR: John Adams didn't take the interstate either.
You're not wrong about this. But even if there was horse-supporting infrastructure along the way, riding a horse from Quincy to D.C. would still be way harder today, if not impossible. Just due to riding on the roads with cars, and find routes that aren't the interstate, or some major road where horse riding isn't allowed.
It might be better to simply require that equivalent paths be built somehow.
For the same sort of big vehicle vs small problems, look at all the problems with trains and car/truck crossings at grade. Spoiler, the train usually wins.