An article in the Wall Street Journal points out that self-driving cars will give more people access to housing that is affordable, particularly in urban areas where growth-management regulation has driving up housing costs. Unfortunately, that’s not the overt message in the article, which is instead headlined, “Driverless Cars to Fuel Suburban Sprawl,” as if that’s a bad thing.
You’d think that a writer for the Wall Street Journal would realize that sprawl is a good thing, but it gives people access to more affordable housing and less traffic congestion, and most importantly allows people to live in the way most people prefer: in a single-family home on a private lot. But this article by technology writer Christopher Mims seems to assume that everyone knows sprawl is bad, even though it doesn’t say why. In fact, the article reports, in a shocked tone, that “half of Americans live in, and are perfectly fine with, suburbs.”
Mims admits that no one really knows how self-driving cars will change the world. But he joins others in assuming that nearly everyone will give up owning a car and rely on car-sharing instead. After all, he and others point out, cars are actually used only 5 percent of the time–what a waste! Hey, Mr. Mims, the toilet in your house is probably used only about 5 percent of the time. Are you willing to share it with anyone who can download a smartphone app?
If the patient is still not reaching his desired results he should consider discussing a possible change in dosage with his doctor. sildenafil generic india is a product basically used for treating erectile dysfunction. In case of cheap cialis overnight , the case is completely different. Although, there is nothing wrong about it, it’s just that their primary motivation is not to hurt, but to give themselves something they think (sometimes at india tadalafil a very deep subconscious level) they need. So if you regencygrandenursing.com viagra canada deliver are feeling embarrassed and want to get embarrassed in front of your partner in bed, then go for one and only vigrx plus.
Mims also quotes an MIT architect named Carlo Ratti who predicts that self-driving cars will so reduce urban congestion that even more people will want to live in dense cities. “There’s an advantage in being dense so I don’t think we’ll see sprawl like in the 1950s and 60s,” he quotes Ratti as saying.
Mims is skeptical on that, and on this the Antiplanner agrees with him. But it doesn’t really matter whether people prefer density or sprawl. If self-driving cars can help them realize their preferences, that can only be a good thing. People like Mims need to learn that all of these preferences are valid and they shouldn’t demonize some of them based on decades of poorly supported propaganda by anti-sprawl planners.
I’ve always struggled with the “ugliness” of suburban sprawl. Which, in my experience, tended to be over-head powerlines, ‘crass” commercial advertising signs, vast spreads of asphalt surrounding retail centers, and congested 6 lane or larger surface streets that were originally country roads. Of course, these have been mitigated in all upscale developments with the exception of the congested “surface” streets. The thing about self-driving cars is they need to communicate with each other in some sort of community artificial intelligence that eliminates the need for traffic lights and speed limits and lane dividers. Then you’ll have real efficient traffic when you can have a “gaggle” of self-driving mini’s 5 lanes across shooting down an artery at 55 mph not stopping for at any intersection. Then in the gap behind the “gaggle” cross traffic flows, local traffic flows, busses stop to pick up passengers, etc etc.
“Hey, Mr. Mims, the toilet in your house is probably used only about 5 percent of the time. Are you willing to share it with anyone who can download a smartphone app?”
Ha! ?
Perhaps driverless cars will make housing more affordable in city centers and higher density areas? No need to include the cost of owning and parking a car. In the long term horizon developers may not (have to) include substantial parking for residential developments. Just a thought.
Also, I share a toilet with many people every day. Doesn’t require a smartphone app, I just have to get the urge when I’m not at home. I think car sharing is the future of self-driving cars.
The big battle of auto cars isn’t legality it’s safety, I’m not talking physical safety. Cybernetic safety. Will the car of the future evolve with no manual controls? or people with no knowledge of how to drive them. Were less worried about physical infrastructure like pipes and water and power. More concerned about protecting our cybernetic domains. We have people who drive their vehicles into a lake because the GPS told them their destination. If self driving cars depend on open source software and downloadable upgrades, or worse operating systems that squabble based on the level of content you want to use; how vulnerable is an entire fleet of automobiles? American’s don’t even place much concern on their computer’s security, how much awareness will they place on their cars?
But the America’s cybersecurity isn’t just abysmal merely from underfunding. According to a recent U.S. Department of Justice report, it is also suffering from internal incompetence and mismanagement. We need a substantial investment into US cyber security. One intrusive data packet (say….failing to convert meters to feet or miles to kilometers) and every mechanic in America will Jump for Joy as cars line up around the block for repair work. How many times per day do you say “There’s something going on with my computer”….that’s what I thought
But sure celebrities, keep storing naked pictures of yourself on your Cloud, it’s safe there.
Google had retained a database with “years” worth of FISA surveillance orders it received.The Chinese hacked it. The FBI cant well maintain their networks, but demands tech companies hand over the ciphers to decrypt data from smartphones, but they’ll keep the info safe? FBI is proposing massive fines for companies that design their systems to be secure. Insanely bad idea. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/proposal-seeks-to-fine-tech-companies-for-noncompliance-with-wiretap-orders/2013/04/28/29e7d9d8-a83c-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story.html
Since the future of warfare is the enemy attacking our critical infrastructure, hacking our transportation software seems pretty basic. And were only talking about the people that hack just for fun……
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/May/Pages/ResearchersHackIntoDriverlessCarSystemTakeControlofVehicle.aspx
Autonomous cars are not equal to personal computers.
Autonomous cars are not equal to nude selfies taken on a smart phone and stored in iCloud.
Autonomous cars are not equal to NSA requiring Google to keep information.
“hacking our transportation software seems pretty basic”
Because…?
“Were less worried about physical infrastructure like pipes and water and power. More concerned about protecting our cybernetic domains.”
“American’s don’t even place much concern on their computer’s security”
Wait. We’re concerned about protecting our “cybernetic domains” (WTF is that anyway?) BUT we don’t care about computer security?
Which is it then?
*sigh*
Just another luddite post with zero relevance to the article.
LazyReader should change its screen name to LazyThinker.
Total waste of bytes.
“Also, I share a toilet with many people every day. Doesn’t require a smartphone app, I just have to get the urge when I’m not at home. I think car sharing is the future of self-driving cars.”
This. And most people will choose private, non-shared AV rides too on occasion. To/from work? Shared. Date night once a week? Non-shared. Weekend family outing with the kids? Non-shared.
There will be car service plans for every income level. Only very rich people will own their own cars. Very poor people will get a taxpayer-paid vouchers for X number of shared-only rides, and maybe that number of rides gets doubled if they’re taken off-peak.
The WSJ article:
I wonder why the author slipped in the hybrid public-private descriptor? There will be no need for taxpayer-funded AVs aside from taxpayers ponying up for trip chits for poor people. Reducing the number of unionized mass transit workers and their huge pension costs will be a godsend for financially strapped municipalities and states.
“I’ve always struggled with the “ugliness” of suburban sprawl. Which, in my experience, tended to be over-head powerlines, ‘crass” commercial advertising signs, vast spreads of asphalt surrounding retail centers, and congested 6 lane or larger surface streets that were originally country roads.”
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Parents of very young children want a private, fenced backyard with some grass so they’re kids can play without worry. Parents of school age children want good schools and low crime rates. I suspect to them living in an apartment in the inner city would be the epitome of “ugly.”
CapitalistRoader wrote:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Parents of very young children want a private, fenced backyard with some grass so they’re kids can play without worry. Parents of school age children want good schools and low crime rates. I suspect to them living in an apartment in the inner city would be the epitome of “ugly.”
Green yards are not just about small children either.
Agree with you about school-age kids (up to Grade 12) – I sure as Hades would not want my stepsons in either “big city” school system reasonably near where I live.
LazyReader wrote:
The big battle of auto cars isn’t legality it’s safety, I’m not talking physical safety. Cybernetic safety. Will the car of the future evolve with no manual controls? or people with no knowledge of how to drive them. Were less worried about physical infrastructure like pipes and water and power. More concerned about protecting our cybernetic domains. We have people who drive their vehicles into a lake because the GPS told them their destination. If self driving cars depend on open source software and downloadable upgrades, or worse operating systems that squabble based on the level of content you want to use; how vulnerable is an entire fleet of automobiles? American’s don’t even place much concern on their computer’s security, how much awareness will they place on their cars?
Agreed on all points.
Your point about people driving into a lake is especially correct, except it does not have to be a lake. There are several “low water” bridges in Virginia and Maryland – these crossings are usually well above the water, but if there is a heavy storm or snowmelt upstream, then the flow overtops the deck, and attempting to cross has lethal consequences (similar to crossing a ford when the water level is high).
In the recent past, there has been at least one such fatality in Virginia where the driver (not familiar with the road) was intently following the GPS and drove out onto an overtopped bridge, the vehicle was swept downstream and the driver drowned.
Agreed on all points?
The nonsensical rambling points? The case of the overwhelming exception of someone driving into a lake due to GPS?
Time and again here, it has been presented that autonomous cars use sensors like LIDAR and do not rely exclusively on GPS.
Always the low wattage rambling from the luddites here.