It’s crazy how icy criticism of self-driving cars comes down to “but cars are bad.” It’s obviously true that cars have some negative effects but they are also very useful. And also AVs have the potential to mitigate most of the downsides of mass car usage.

I think one reason this debate has gotten so confused is that the media industry is dominated by the handful of places where walkable urbanism really is viable. And in those places shifting road capacity from cars to bikes/pedestrians can be beneficial at the margin.

@binarybits I am extremely concerned about the burden of "don't get hit by cars" getting shifted even further onto pedestrians with "you should have been carrying your safety beacon". I think there is a likely future where AVs decrease deaths of passengers but increase those of pedestrians

@binarybits Not only do cars have mostly negative effects that span all aspects of your life that you dont seem to consider, but also walkable urbanism is viable anywhere that isnt built specifically for cars to exist and not people. Be more curious

@binarybits Nah, the real criticisms come down to "cars are unsafe, especially for people not in cars", which can be mitigated with technology; and "cars take up too much space" which is a basic fact of geometry not liable to be changed by AVs.

@binarybits This was today

@binarybits Trains dude

@binarybits Getting to mass transit can be onerous from the suburbs. A self-driving taxi/shuttle could reduce the cost and time to get to mass transit stations. Buses tend to be too infrequent, unreliable, and slow. AVs compliment mass transit.