[PLUG-TALK] Driving in Cities: How Ants Commute
Paul Heinlein
heinlein at madboa.com
Wed Jan 21 00:26:33 UTC 2015
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Keith Lofstrom wrote:
> I talked with Wes at the clinic about a "skyrail" system to lower
> cars into the flow of freeway traffic, and pluck them back out again
> - a very artificial and constrained driving task, though still
> somewhat beyond current AI capabilities. The long exit-free
> westbound stretch of I-84 from 181st to 47th would be a great place
> to try this. With more geeks and fewer lawyers, Tokyo might be
> better. Broadly applied, this technology would eliminate the need
> for high self-powered onramp acceleration, huge high horsepower
> engines, and all the weight and pollution that entails.
Without assailing the technical logic here, I have to cry "foul" on
the social-psychological thinking.
People who realize that they rarely, if ever, need tons of horsepower
-- and that that they're doing everyone a favor by right-sizing to a
smaller more engine -- have probably done so.
High-horsepower motors are sold to
1. The very poor, who are priced out of more efficient models,
2. The fearful, who have a million reasons why they need an
urban assault vehicle for personal travel,
3. The insecure, who gain self worth from powerful vehicles,
4. People who actually use that motor capacity on a regular basis;
In this camp are included those with limited resources (money
or space) who find it unreasonable to keep two automobiles.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that we can all agree with the
reasons that put someone in category #4.
Category #1 can be emptied out only through coerced wealth
redistribution. Charity might help some, but I doubt it would make
much of a dent. A brilliant marketing move by an automobile
manufacturer could also help here, but I'm not going to hold my breath
waiting. Taxation or price fixing is the only realistic solution, and
I really can't see it happening in the near future.
Category #2 might be partially solved by making the roads
significantly safer than they are now, but I've found it difficult to
systematically talk people out of their fears.
Category #3 is socially determined, but "bigger is better" is an
attitude as old as ostentatious houses, flamboyant battle gear, and
large retinues. Until vehicles are removed from that category, this
group of people is here to stay.
The only across-the-board solution is increasing the personal pain of
maintaining a big ol' car or truck. It might be via a gas tax (which
would end up being regressive), an emissions tax (ditto), making them
illegal (a tough sell, and imo government overreach), or adding
social stigma against them (as with smoking today).
--
Paul Heinlein
heinlein at madboa.com
45°38' N, 122°6' W
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list