If you live in a big city like London it's madness to run a car. You are much better off occasionally hiring one for specific journeys.
But in rural areas public transport is just tricky to manage. To make it good enough with frequent well interconnected services you would have to spend a fortune.
I disagree on one aspect of self driving. I think it could be revolutionary for the elderly and/or disabled.
This is a very good point, but I have attended a conference which was focussed on this specific issue. It was run by the insurance industry, it's a massive challenge for them. The only conclusion I could take from the event was that it HAS to be the manufacturer of the car, and the manufacturers are not happy about that. It is very much not resolved as far as I understand.
On the flip side, the data is now available, proper fully self driving cars (not driver assist 'self driving') is safer by a huge margin. Human beings are very bad drivers.
As Robert suggests below, it has to be a combination of the manufacturer and maintainer. The operator of the vehicle can have some culpability if they fail to maintain the vehicle to a reasonable standard.
In many respects this is no different to any other complex machine thar can injure.
For example. A computer controlled radiotherapy machine. The radiologist sets the machine. Then it runs automatically.
If the machine malfunctions and kills the patient there will be an investigation to see if
A. The radiologist set it up in a way deemed appropriate for a qualified person.
B. It had been maintained reasonably
C. The unit was running as expected but contained a design fault.
All of this will be used to apportion blame.
For self driving cars I don't see much difference.
I doubt there will be realization. It will simply change as time goes by, to where people a century from now will look back at how different things used to be.
It is sort of absurd that people who work in the same town or city they live in feel the need to own a car. I get why they do. I can't drive so I use public transport for work and leisure trips, so I know it can be frustrating.
But I do think there's an element of people just thinking that's how it has to be, that you have to own a car and that mentality needs to be broken. If more people took the bus, and pressured local and national government to make sure it was good, the roads would be clearer for everyone.
Evolution will take care of the car problem. As we decend from feast into famine, not only will cars become too expensive and inefficient, but the sprawling infrastructure they demand will become too burdensome. Cars will not completely disappear, but they will be understood as the liability that they are and successful people will make the effort to build their lives without them.
We were talking and I said "Beeching", my son said "but a lot of the stations were tiny and not many people used them"
I counted, if the station's had been kept, as a country we'd be driving cars less.
Perhaps Beeching needs to do his hatchet 🪓 job on modern car use.
I recognise this contradiction too.
If you live in a big city like London it's madness to run a car. You are much better off occasionally hiring one for specific journeys.
But in rural areas public transport is just tricky to manage. To make it good enough with frequent well interconnected services you would have to spend a fortune.
I disagree on one aspect of self driving. I think it could be revolutionary for the elderly and/or disabled.
But who is responsible when it kills or maims?
This is a very good point, but I have attended a conference which was focussed on this specific issue. It was run by the insurance industry, it's a massive challenge for them. The only conclusion I could take from the event was that it HAS to be the manufacturer of the car, and the manufacturers are not happy about that. It is very much not resolved as far as I understand.
On the flip side, the data is now available, proper fully self driving cars (not driver assist 'self driving') is safer by a huge margin. Human beings are very bad drivers.
As Robert suggests below, it has to be a combination of the manufacturer and maintainer. The operator of the vehicle can have some culpability if they fail to maintain the vehicle to a reasonable standard.
In many respects this is no different to any other complex machine thar can injure.
For example. A computer controlled radiotherapy machine. The radiologist sets the machine. Then it runs automatically.
If the machine malfunctions and kills the patient there will be an investigation to see if
A. The radiologist set it up in a way deemed appropriate for a qualified person.
B. It had been maintained reasonably
C. The unit was running as expected but contained a design fault.
All of this will be used to apportion blame.
For self driving cars I don't see much difference.
I doubt there will be realization. It will simply change as time goes by, to where people a century from now will look back at how different things used to be.
It is sort of absurd that people who work in the same town or city they live in feel the need to own a car. I get why they do. I can't drive so I use public transport for work and leisure trips, so I know it can be frustrating.
But I do think there's an element of people just thinking that's how it has to be, that you have to own a car and that mentality needs to be broken. If more people took the bus, and pressured local and national government to make sure it was good, the roads would be clearer for everyone.
Evolution will take care of the car problem. As we decend from feast into famine, not only will cars become too expensive and inefficient, but the sprawling infrastructure they demand will become too burdensome. Cars will not completely disappear, but they will be understood as the liability that they are and successful people will make the effort to build their lives without them.
I see your point but as a species we seem to be very slow to learn from our mistakes. I wonder how long this realisation will take?