Thanks to all of my channel supporters who made this video possible! If you'd like to support Not Just Bikes, the best way is to sign up to Nebula: go.nebula.tv/notjustbikes You'll also get to watch all of my videos early and ad-free, along with videos from hundreds of other talented creators. Already a Nebula subscriber? Then go watch this video over there! nebula.tv/videos/notjustbikes-how-selfdriving-cars-will-destroy-cities
The cynical Part of me thanks that some company is just going to say fuck it and make remote driven cars with modern cruise control and sensors driven by Indonesian
Notably, in the Tempe incident, the self-driving car that killed that pedestrian HAD a safety driver. The safety driver was using their phone when the incident happened.
In ISO there's a concept called 'reasonably foreseeable misuse'. That is, you should not account just for people making technical mistakes in using your technology, but also for the mistakes from misuse that you can realistically predict will happen based on what the technology does. For example, opening a microwave oven when it's still running because you're in a rush or the food inside is burning: hence the existence of mandatory interlocks on the door. These physically cut power to the microwave generator the moment the door opens, which makes them practically infallible, unlike tech bro type software controls (also, it means they damage the device each time you crank that door open, so please use the off button). If your technology leads more than a rounding error of drivers to ignore necessary safety precautions, ignoring that on the basis of 'but their fault' is criminal negligence.
I was also disappointed he didn't mention this. I'd further mention that the incident happened at 10PM and, with images released, it'd have been hard for a human driving even paying attention to have reacted in time since it was dark and there was poor lighting in addition to the speed of the road.
The American Dream is a home without shared walls. The average american car commute is 25 mins, which is shorter than the average American public transit commute (31 mins). The car commute is a little longer than the 19 min bike commute average. Only 3% of Americans have a 2 hr or longer commute, and the majority of those are public transit commuters taking commuter rail and buses.
@@JoRo-u8u But why is the public transit commute slower than the car commute? Could it be, because all the money goes to building car centric infrastructure instead of building public transit infrastructure?
In part it would be due to needing to pick up passengers while with a car you go directly where you want and it might not stop at the parking loot at ones job. But also as you said, Many places are very car centric so public commute gets worse (some times to force people to buy cars)
@@JoRo-u8uyou mean with those ugly 2 meter gaps between houses? Just a waste of land, that cannot be used for anything and turns into a dumpster. How about just building with materials other than cardboard? I know what you are talking about regarding the shared walls, I lived in stick built hotels while being to the US - you hear everything, but I also lived all my life in concrete apartments in Europe (in different countries) - you don't hear shit from your neighbours.
The absolute fear you instilled in me when you said that autonomous vehicle companies are going to export American driving styles to Europe. Instant horror.
@@dianataulbut2299 Quick hack: Just mirror all sensor input and control outputs so the software never even realizes it's driving on the left. This could be done in five minutes, probably. It'll cause issues further down the road but you know, rapid innovation, break things, etc.
they are already trying to export American privatization to many parts of the world; it's not unreasonable to be worried. money doesn't just talk, it changes laws and landscapes
Watching this basically reminded me of that part in dead space where you have to cross the street but hundreds of automatic cars are moving at insane speed so you have to cause a crash simply to cross.
Last month I was on holiday in California and visited the Tech Interactive in San Jose. Next to the exibitions about climate change and space travel, there was also an IMAX theater where they had different movies that you could go to. We went to 'The City of the Future' and I, as a big fan of your channel, was very interested in what they would come up with. They followed a civil servant from the municipality of Los Angeles who was leading a project in the city to improve it for better mobility in the future. One of the things that they did in the movie was to visit different places in the world to see what they could learn, and the first place they went to was the Netherlands. Me being from the Netherlands and watching your channel thought 'Ooh wow, lets see what they learned from the Netherlands, there is so much to choose from'. But then the two things they took from the Netherlands, and I am not kidding, was a self sailing boat in the canals of Amsterdam and some business building where they put a lot of sensors throughout the building so that it could detect when someone in the room so that the lights and heating could be turned on automatically. That was it!! And then at the end of the movie, when they were talking about their ideal city of the future, their solution to traffic congestion was even more stupid than automomous cars, it was flying cars 😂😂😂 It was both the most stupid and the most American 'City of the Future' video I had ever seen.
Ah yes, flying cars - promised forever, but realistically would just drain the wallets of all but the wealthy, and put an even larger demand on the resources of our planet.
That's hilarious. You can't even make a parody of that! I'm born and raised in this country and still can't get over how blind people are to the bubble we live in.
the "smart" building in your "city of the future" I have experienced 15 years ago in New Westminster BC Canada and they built a NEW grocery store walking distance from my home and I would go shop late or early to avoid the crowds and the isles would light up bright as you entered and dim down once you left all the fridges and freezers would be dark unless you where within 2 meters or so of there door you walked along in a carpet of light as they turned on and back off again once passed - was a "cool" design and I believe mostly to SHOW "GREEN" over actual power savings
LA is by itself an absolute dystopia. LAX airport is surrounded by a sea of highways and has no subway connection whatsoever, yet in the airport building they make stupid announcements saying "Let's build a world-class transit system for Los Angeles"
My dad keeps insisting it's _inevitable_ that all transportation in the future will be self "driving" flying cars. I'm not sure if he's pulling my leg or if I should be worried about him.
What was most surprising to me was that when I *began* researching this video (two years ago!) it was going to be about some of the technical challenges that would need to be overcome in order to make self-driving cars a reality, but the conclusion was going to be that ultimately, AVs would be a good thing. By the time I was *done* researching this topic I was absolutely horrified of our future self-driving dystopia. 😱
yeah I used to think they can't be worse than drunk cocked up drivers but they are just as bad. and all robots will be drunk drivers not just the usual human % we have now. airplanes and trains have the best safest stats. let's do more public transportation with professional drivers who undergo tests regularly...does that sound good? good.
There are a ton of exciting new technologies that could be used to make the world better. And none of them will be. And absolutely nothing is going to force the new technologies not to be used to make the world a horrifying dystopia. It's just deeply, deeply depressing being an old programmer who used to be excited for the utopian possibilities of things like the Internet, who spent the last few decades seeing the world consistently and forcefully choose the wrong path at absolutely every junction.
NJB I think you should maybe make a future video on the topic you slightly touched on here: Not owning anything. The future of capitalism is looking at 0 ownership and subscription only
You could have just played that clip over and over again from Detroit: Become Human - the Autonomous-Vehicle only highway features with all the properties and features you outlined here.
I haven't thought enough about it to give you a well thought out and considered response but as someone on the centre right of politics I find it quite weird that a car centric Society is right coded. Public roads and free parking are socialist while massive companies use lobbying as a source of state capture in order to do what they do. Having your own car is individualistic and I'm definitely not against individualism but the way it currently works is that everyone else is subsidising you and I can't bring myself to like that. I'm visually impaired and I could never drive a car unless self-driving cars really do make things much much safer but that will need a robust regulatory environment and plenty of alternatives. It's not like I know anything about this but on the face of it I think that roads with less cars on them because people are on public transport would be much better for the AI models which now have to look out for less things. I suppose that just shipping more cars will be what the biggest companies would want to do. I am not totally against self-driving cars and I think they do have some potential and I also think that the companies who make them should be able to reap rewards from having done so but not at the expense of wonderful cities like Edinburgh where I live.
It's amazing that the city adaptation to AVs timeline seems surreal, until you remember that it's pretty much the same timeline of how cities where bulldozed to adapt to cars
Yep, that's why I included history in each segment, because otherwise it would seem too unbelievable. All of these things are feasible, if we let them happen.
@@jaz093 this is a minority of people you're talking about more people are starting to understand that loud cars that are deadly aren't good to have or be around you don't speak for everyone
Uber couldn't make it in Denmark because the Danish authorities considered it a taxi company. It had to comply with regulations for taxi services, which wasn't profitable with their business model. Hopefully robo-taxis will run into the same hurdles.
@@mikepotter5718 if self driving cars got their way, it'll be cheap for a bit, it'll kill competition including public transport, and then the prices will be jacked. Look at insulin, or idk Uber?
As a disabled person who uses a power wheelchair for mobility I have a new found fear of AVs not being trained on people shaped like me and I end up getting smoked in a crosswalk. So thats ... fun.
Also a disabled person and the only i take with this video is the concept of taxing driving. Many disabled people drive because there isn’t an accessible alternative and we already aren’t given enough money to live. I don’t think it’s right to be further penalized to just get to doctors appointments etc
I recall reading about AVs having trouble recognising kangaroos when being tested near Canberra. I think the article said the root of the problem was that unlike northern hemisphere animals (I think the car company was from Scandinavia), kangaroos look very different when standing compared to when in motion, and the computer couldn't make the connection between a stationary kangaroo and a moving one. If it has that kind of failure with the wildlife, it'll almost certainly have it with humans in wheelchairs vs humans walking about, too.
@@Roxor128 It was Volvo. Part of the issue was (in addition to what you said) also with their camera based system - the kangaroo's jumps made it difficult to estimate how far away it was iirc.
@@Roxor128as an Australian, hitting a kangaroo tends to end up similarly to a north American hitting a large deer. God forbid the kangaroo is a large male you're hitting a moose like thing.
@@DaniAlexandria This is why we need to tax driving only AFTER we build alternatives, for example, build a high speed regional rail line that stops in every major city along a freeway, and then turn the freeway into a toll road, add a tram line along major arterial roads, and then extend the tolled area to include those as well. Adding tolls/taxes before building transit/pedestrian infra is not at all productive and not what we should be focusing on right now, but it is something we should keep in mind for when driving isn't as necessary as it currently is.
Programmer here, I was working on one of the (many many) ECUs that was supposed to be sitting in the UBER Volvo car, handling a safety critical feature. Not sure if it made it to the car in the end, because it was crazy how the project was driven. When you say that they care about profits and not safety, you are 100% correct. There were no tests on the code at all while the ECU was already supposed to be delivered into testing vehicles and we (not me, because I got out of it) had to work a lot of overtime trying to even have passing tests in place. The lead constantly requested, and were granted "deviations" for missing tests and critical features being lacking and told us to not report bugs as "bugs" but as "work items" because they could be held liable if we called them "bugs". The lead was even yelling at team members because of how badly it was going, despite the problem being the lead having an unrealistic schedule and accepting features that were never going to make it in the time they were requesting as well as the lead putting the priority on new features rather than securing tests. I will state that it was not Volvo or UBER, but a third party they had contracted, but Volvo was the one granting the deviations. It's really really bad and I'm glad to have made it out from that trashheap.
I work in engineering and its interesting to get some "insider info" like this. Ive worked for education, financial, betting companies so far but never any of these self driving startups. Ive definitely ran into similar project "bugs", it was just never at this scale of being able to affect an actual car on the road.
@@yuriydee I hope, but doubt, that others are different... But after having worked with automotive, cars kinda scare me a bit and the only reason you can ever trust them at all is if they're not self-certified, but certified by third party that you can trust to not take bribes.
This sounds like every software startup in existence, only with deadlier consequences. All the problems of the software industry with all the ramifications of the auto industry.
@@gctypo2838 sadly, that's not even a startup. They were quite experienced in the field and I have no idea how it can turn out that badly with people that experienced...
You can also create a fully automated metro that is 3x faster than any car, 100% electric (more eco friendly) and the technology for it is already mature.
Can confirm, the fully automated and largely overground Dubai Metro (itself an achievement in the oil-rich car-centric Middle East) flies past traffic during rush hour, for cheaper than paying all the Salik tolls, with trains only like 3 minutes apart… and packed like sardines because they grossly underestimated how much people want to get places quickly rather than privately.
@@svr5423 I dunno man, driving on the Autobahn during weekdays, it's hard to average more than 100 km/h over long distances. Maybe in some super rural areas you can go faster, but not on the popular routes.
Just a few things to add from a labor perspective: - AV companies are against right-to-repair and since AV's contain extensive computer/software components, it will become almost impossible for people to repair their own cars. Instead people will have to rely on the AV company/dealerships for repair, of which they will have a monoploy on pricing. This will put many auto repair shops out of buisness simply due to lacking the advanced tools and permission to repair. - Robotaxis will destroy what is left of the taxi industry. Uber and other gig-work services have destroyed the taxi industry's ability to unionize and demand fair wages. Robotaxis will be the final nail in the coffin. Instead of your fare going to someone trying to make a living and a company, it will 100% go to a company. I'd rather pay a living person than further enrich a massive tech company.
The government is partly to blame for the death of the taxi industry too, they required drivers to go into a lifetime of debt for their stupid medallions. In the 2010s, a taxi medallion cost $750k-$1M, but drivers committed to that because they would make about $80k a year. Or they transferred it to another aspiring cab driver. But now those same medallions have a market value under $150k, and no one wants to become a cab driver anymore because earnings are so low. Because of this, veteran cab drivers are filling for bankruptcy and even committing suicide because they’re trapped. Why would anyone want to pay that much to drive a cab their whole life when they can become an Uber/Lyft driver for hardly anything?
There is no benefit to paying a person to drive you.. since you will still be on your device the entire time. The company will be tracking you and all the other needless crap on your device.. and making as much money from you as possible. The driver of said vehicle.. will be and is being toyed with in every shape and form in reguards to how much they are being paid for a given route even compared to another person going the same route.. at same time of day. Worst part... The drivers are worse off.. because not only are they not aware of their surroundings.. to better learn where the HECK they are.. they get so little of what you pay.. they cant even cover the usual upkeep on their vehicle.
Guys! I have an idea on how to fix self driving cars! First make them longer and wider (50-60ft by 8-9ft). Then add more doors to each side. Couple a few to each other to create a TRAAIN (Tech Radical Artificial Autonomous Intelligence Newtecheyelonmuskbullshitidk). Finally give them steel wheels and put them onto steel rails or tracks for less rolling resistance. We can then test this new amazing tech in a smaller city like Vancouver, Montreal or Honolulu!
LOL what's next, smaller TRAAINs to take people to the larger ones? I dunno, let's call it a "Tech Radically Asinine Autonomous Machine" (TRAAM) or something. Or when rails aren't a possibility, have huge trucks with many windows drive people around. Like a "Big Ultimate User Storage" (BUUS).
OMG! I don't why companies aren't hiring this guy this is what you call top talent. He's clearly a genius and that TRAAIN technology looks surreal!!😂 the N in that TRAAIN acronym tho😂🤣
I still think the solution to traffic is self driving AVs. What we've learned in the last few years as AV tech becomes reality is that solving traffic doesn't come with the benefits we thought would come from solving traffic.
CGP Grey consistently markets shallow solutions as the best solutions without pondering the underlying reasons. Another example is his original "Death to Pennys" video, where he does not consider inflation or why the penny has been devalued or whether any of that is good or not, just brushes inflation aside and says "What? Pennies aren't worth as much as it takes to make them? Just get rid of them! Easy~!" Immediate Edit: ANOTHER EXAMPLE is the plane one where CGP Grey gripes about how passengers load onto a plane and how much faster it could be to get onto the plan if you use strategy X Y and Z, without addressing that even with the slow passenger seating, you still end up sitting there in the plane for a while, while the air crew finishes all diagnostics and preparations.
@@Pannedcakes-90 At least in the case of the US/Canada, if you haven't even come close to "solving" traffics then how could you claim that it doesn't have benefits that you expected.
It really comes down to one extremely simple fact: The problem with car dependent infrastructure is not that the cars are driven by people, it's that people are wholely dependent on cars.
Right, but a car dependent society where people are driven by AI could dramatically reduce the number of fatalities, of which 90% are caused by human error.
@@drew031127 so would a society that isn't dependent on cars, and on top of that, it would be pleasant to walk or bike around, as well as take the bus or train
@@drew031127 in the real that was possible and still is, not long ago we had walkable cities, car companies need to f off and stop lobbying against better transportation design
You say Utrecht decided to change, but I think it's important to mention that massive (often disruptive) protests played a big part in forcing that decision. People nowadays seem to have forgotten their collective power when they work together ;)
People have forgotten... everything. 1. Their ability to find their way out of a paperbag made out of swiss cheese with a cop escort. 2. Their ability to think. 3. How to put effort.. into something.
I suspect there's a law in that area against placing traffic cones in the street where it'd block traffic if it's not for a legit reason like for road maintenance, emergency services or suchlike, so they place the traffic cone on the vehicle instead to avoid that particular legal risk.
As a disabled person who uses a power wheelchair, thank you so much for mentioning points about people with disabilities. I am someone who is never going to be able to drive a car themselves due to my disability, and it is *so* infuriating to hear the argument that cars everywhere for everyone at all times is needed for people with disabilities. I am disabled! And I cannot use a car without very expensive modifications and someone else driving it! I know they can be quite useful for other people with disabilities, but they are a huge hindrance to me. I've been living in an urban area of the US for the past few years after living in suburbia for all of my life, and it is *such* a refreshing experience to just be able to... get places. Before, I'd have to rely on my parents to drive me anywhere of interest, which really sucked if they were unavailable and I'd have to miss out on something. But now that I'm in a walkable area, I can just... go! I can take the train, rapid transit rail, even buses if I dare (though I haven't taken one yet due to previous bad bus experiences... trains have proven more reliable and safer so far). I can never go back to how I lived previously.
100% i tell this to people all the time. i am a bike messenger and whenever i say we dont need cars, people say well what about getting to the hospital or whatever. and im like ambulances get stuck in traffic. i hope the bus situation gets better, that is awful.
@@loimabean there are taxis with ramps to allow wheelchair users to get in. Rather than waiting for the bus or train, Self driving cars will be better for wheelchair users as it can take them to the front door of their destination
@@jaz093 I'm not so sold on self driving cars for wheelchair transit. I ride the bus. Every now and then someone with a wheelchair or mobility aid struggles and needs assistance. There's an actual driver there, often another transit worker, who can help out. Some people have to worry about medical emergencies or chair malfunctions. The other question is cost. Many disabled people have limited income. Sure, hailing a robotaxi might be worth doing sometimes, but your transportation costs would go up a lot if you took out all mass transit and replaced it with any private driving service. For a lot of people, the value of 'your door to the front door of destination' is not really such a huge plus. I'm disabled. I take transit. The stop near my house is 2 blocks away. With no transfers I'm 2 blocks from work, and with a transfer, I'm right across the street. Elon Musk always bashes transit because 'it doesn't come right up to your door or take you right where you're going' but seriously, are 4 maximum blocks a huge inconvenience for me? And a city that's more walkable is better overall. I don't even need transit for some things.
so why are you against self driving cars, which you could own yourself, because you wouldn't have to drive it? It would literally make your life much easier, as you could have your own car. Not to mention they could be customised to accomodate people with disabilities better. I don't understand you at all.
The eliminating pedestrians section was hard to watch because I've seen many stores close down when streets that used to have little traffic went bankrupt after the increase in car traffic and became hostile to pedestrians.
And yet every time you try to replace parking spaces for cars (usually occupied by someone who works nearby rather than customers if the metering and ticketing scheme isn't... aggressive...) with cycle ways, bus stops, and wider footpaths, you get businesses pitching a fit about how they'll loose customers...
in those examples you are removing facilities for people that ARE t here to benefit the people that DO NOT EVEN WANT TO BE there at all and are travelling through
yeah i work as a post deliverer and on my path i have the big stroad of the city i deliver in (south of Dijon) and most businesses on that stroad are dead
I feel like we tiptoe around the safety questions. I don't like automated cars because I don't like cars, but I think they're clearly safer than modern drivers. People text and drive, drive high/drunk, and people make mistakes too. Like at 9:10 - you say the Tesla caused a pileup, but the cars behind the Tesla did not leave enough room in front of them to allow for a sudden stop. A good driver should always leave enough room to account for a sudden stop. The self driving car made a mistake, but so did the 7 human drivers behind it.
10:23 The problem wasn't just that the program recognized pedestrian 1.2s before impact - the car could have most likely stopped or minimized impact (that Volvo can stop in 120feet from 60mph and pedestrian was recognized in 75feet at 43mph while already braking for the intersection), but instead of braking it initiated _action suppression_ aka did nothing for 1s (didn't even alert the driver it was predicting collision), because Uber feared immediate response would result in too many false positives, so real reaction time was 0.2s, and even then it only initiated plan for _gradual slowdown_ instead of emergency braking, so it was total software failure. Also that Volvo was equipped with manufacturer's collision warning and braking systems, but Uber disabled it for easier development and only reenabled it after this crash, but remember kids those corporations will make us safer, just not all of you will survive...
Fr, it should have immediately started slowing down more while it was thinking to give it more time to stop or at least so it impacted at a far lower rate of speed
I work in software engineering. This is like the most looked-down-upon practice except now it also hurts people: hiding the flaws in your shitty code with more shitty code.
I wish there were bike lanes where I live. But they don't make sense in the vast majority of places. We have to invest in what provides the most value to people and unused bike lanes isn't it.
@@username7763 Again, extremely short-sighted and misinformed argument. Bike lanes are essential for urban areas, benefiting not just cyclists but drivers and pedestrians alike by reducing overall congestion. Here’s why: Reduced Traffic: Bike lanes encourage more people to bike, taking cars off the road and easing traffic. Fewer cars mean smoother flow for everyone. Increased Safety: Dedicated lanes make roads safer by separating bikes from cars, reducing the risk of accidents and protecting pedestrians as well. Efficient Land Use: Bike lanes allow more people to move through a city in less space compared to cars, making city infrastructure work more efficiently. Cleaner Environment: Fewer cars lead to lower emissions, contributing to better air quality and a healthier urban environment. Boost to Local Businesses: Cyclists are more likely to stop and shop locally, supporting neighborhood businesses and increasing economic activity. Cities that prioritize bike lanes create safer, cleaner, and more efficient spaces for everyone, while reducing the pressure on streets and contributing to a higher quality of urban life. Removing them is a step backward for city infrastructure.
@@username7763 I live in Riyadh KSA (Probably the biggest city in the Arab peninsula) and I share your negative sentiment, but at the end of the day, thousands of people are dying from car accidents every year maybe month where I live, so this isn't just a matter of "my commute to university is awful" (which it is) this is also a life or death decision that can genuinely save thousands of lives, not to mention that especially for my country any saved petrol is a benefit to the nation as it is our only current reliable economic source, so while it might be doom and gloom you should still know that a change is doable and even necessary. I hope your city gets better 😁
@@Ryan-yj4sd if the number of people actually using them is apparently so small assigning the space to that specific group is a terrible use of resources..why not have another lane on the other side just for horses while were at it?
@@johntowers1213 The claim that only 1% of Torontonians cycle is based on outdated data and does not reflect current trends. This statistic originates from a 2011 Statistics Canada survey, which reported that 1.2% of Canadians used bicycles as their primary mode of commuting. However, more recent studies indicate a significant increase in cycling within Toronto. A 2019 City of Toronto survey revealed that 44% of residents identified as utilitarian cyclists, meaning they use bicycles for purposes such as commuting to work, school, shopping, or visiting friends. Additionally, 70% of Toronto residents reported cycling for either recreational or utilitarian reasons. These figures demonstrate a substantial rise in cycling activity compared to earlier years. Furthermore, data from the 2016 census showed that in certain Toronto neighborhoods, cycling mode share reached as high as 34%. This indicates that in some areas, a significant portion of the population relies on bicycles for their daily transportation needs. Despite this growth, Premier Doug Ford has cited the outdated 1% statistic to justify the removal of bike lanes, arguing that they contribute to traffic congestion. However, numerous studies have shown that well-designed bike lanes can alleviate congestion by providing alternative transportation options, thereby reducing the number of cars on the road. By focusing on outdated data, the argument overlooks the current and increasing demand for cycling infrastructure in Toronto. In summary, the 1% cycling statistic is outdated and does not accurately represent the current state of cycling in Toronto. Recent data shows a significant increase in cycling activity, underscoring the importance of maintaining and expanding bike lanes to accommodate this growing trend and to promote a more sustainable and efficient urban transportation system
12:31 this clip is terrifying. that car was about to run the red light and hit that pedestrian, but another car ran the green light and t-boned it instead, saving the pedestrian's life
I'm Canadian (and studying engineering!), and I've been OBSESSED with your videos recently. Been watching them during every GO train commute. Glad to be early!
I'm glad you're not in a two thousand pound SUV. Alone. That is how many people drive into Toronto, ON., while complaining about bike lanes and pedestrians.
@@Alsatiagent-zu1rx There has never been a 2000 lb SUV. An SUV weighs at least double that! They are also less capable in efficiency and cargo capacity than station wagons that are going extinct.
Have you also been completely depressed by how blind the rest of the cohort seems to be to any real issue or their solutions? Be it privacy, the actual productive use of ML, transportation or sustainability. The most baffling example i remember is in an innovation focused class, when a team of 10 genuinly spent all semester glazing hyperloop... As if it was fixing some real problems. When every single one of their talking points for every single presentation they made was just better solved with trains. And trains don't even have the absurd technology cost and energy of operation cost...
25:57 did..... did Ford make a marketing video showing that less car space, less cars, and more bike paths allowed the remaining cars to move faster? Which is the complete opposite of what Ford would want anyway?
yeah it is gaslighting, like BMW makinf that ad where the man uses a bike on his day to day and his bmw only sometimes, whhen in reality if he has a car he'll probably use that most days
@@hypernewlapse no way, I'm that bmw owner and I purchased it for play. Although probably most in the US don't share that mentality, but that bmw ad was showing a future I'd greatly prefer
There's this infamous Saturn ad from 2003 which basically depicts all car drivers as people who are running on the road instead. To this day it remains one of my favorite ads, because I have never seen such a fantastic demonstration of how absurdly space inefficient cars are. It's called "Sheet Metal".
After watching that segment I decided that's going to be my new response to all "but American cities are too new, theyre not old like those European cities! We were built for cars!"
I am currently living in Utrecht for a 4-month Study Abroad term and I could not have made a better choice. I am dreading my return to Edmonton in 40 days...
@@reilandeubank How do you put this pedestrian environment into places built for having the opposite? How do run transit in areas that have car-centric land use effectively?
@QuarioQuario54321 if you paid attention to the clip, most cities were built before car dependency and were destroyed after the fact (phoenix being an exception) So, we can do what Utrecht did and instead of making excuses, make change
The huge benefit of Utrecht is that it is extremely central to train connections for most of the Netherlands. You can basically fall out of a train directly into the shopping centre. One effect that I always notice when I am in Utrecht is the large amount of unique, privately owned shops. The internet may kill large-chain retail but a unique one-only type of shop can still exist exactly because they sell stuff you can't as easily find online. And such places need foot traffic. The point is that car infrastructure does NOT benefit local retail but a train station does.
@@svr5423 ??? Traffic jams? I was there last weekend. Walked from the train station to several shops. Never saw a jam :) You see, when you are driving in traffic you ARE the traffic, and when you get in a jam you ARE the jam. Stop complaining about something you created yourself.
I occasionally go to Utrecht by tram or train to buy comic books and the only place I encounter cars is the crossing of the Catharijnesingel and the Mariaplaats streets. It’s still annoying since it’s a traffic light that allows both cars and others from the same side to move, causing cars that turn to have to stop for cyclists and pedestrians, who also don’t feel safe anymore because of that (though it can be skipped by walking though Hoog-Catharijne)
Internet commerce does kill off a lot of the specialty shops, because an internet store can offer very unique items that only a small number of people want, and it can do it at a volume where the local shops can't compete with its economies of scale.
There’s an interesting point made by Rory Sutherland on reversing the attitude changes behaviour perspective. Change the behaviour, and one’s attitude changes instead. I was a petrol head until I bought an e bike. I used to cycle many years ago but e bikes fundamentally changed the experience. That brilliant video you made a few years back “I’m not a cyclist” nailed it in that time. Now, I’m engaged in conversations with colleagues and anyone about my e bike. It’s a conversation starter rather than a source of rebuke. Our employer now has a salary sacrifice policy where an e bike is purchased through work and is paid from our gross salary saving 20-40% of tax. This ends the argument at the cost of an e bike over a car. Make a video in real London. The place is transitioning in real time now that the middle classes ride their kids to school, sharing the cycle lanes with workies and professionals. Great video Jason. Thanks.
Since i watch videos here im suprised how many of my drives are to support my petrolhead hobby, like driving to my rented workshop 30km from home or getting spare parts from 1.5hrs of driving away. If i wasnt a petrolhead and not living on a farm in the middle of nowhere i wouldnt need a car at all. germany btw
@@satsumagt5284 i do, yes. A Barkas B1000 rare 3-axle tow truck version, a Trabant Saloon which will get a double HP engine, a Trabant Estate thats becoming a Camping Trailer, a CityEl 1990s Electric Threewheeler, a Opel Astra F 2.0 GSi (my daily) and a Scooter i wanna get rid of or swap for a more classic 50cc motorcycle. Used to have a much bigger collection too. Im living on the land so ill always need a car, and the small towns around me are too small for Trams and anything more frequent than hourly Busses and a Train
Demography! The world is getting older. 60 year olds will soon be the majority and they do not want to ride bikes of any sort. They want to feel, warm, dry and safe.
Being American means I'm constantly struggling to decide whether I should keep watching cities barely make any transit/walkability progress or just move abroad.
"How DARE you take the easy way out, instead of joining a local pro-transit lobby for a decade, that might not even pan out! Think about the poors who can't just move!" -- A Moralizing Subset of Urbanists
@@garryferrington811 You say that... but there are absolutely cities that are managing to improve. Of course, there are also cities that are actively getting worse, so...
@@victorokeahialam8925 am I right in assuming that you didn't watch the video, or at least you didn't pay close attention? When talking about Utrecht, Jason mentioned that while many of the streets are closed to cars delivery vehicles are still allowed. This movement isn't about eliminating all vehicles; it's about redesigning cities to prioritize PEOPLE over TRAFFIC (ie, cars and trucks). Yes, we need delivery vehicles to get products to stores so we can purchase them, but we can use alternative forms of transportation to get us to those stores. This includes trains, trams, buses, and the like (mass transit), as well as bikes, scooters, and walking (active transport). Reducing vehicle traffic will make active transport much more appealing as it would actually be ENJOYABLE to use it.
I live in the UK and my town decided to have traffic go round my town more and turn most of the town into pedestrian only and lord knows it's so much nicer going shopping I feel like it actually increased spending it's much less of a hassle now but America is just to anti pedestrian
I work for General Motors' self-driving division and (despite the potential repercussions) have shared this within our organization. Here's hoping to change things from the inside.
One thing that always seems gets overlooked as well is that for the futuristic "utopia" of a network of self driving cars to work ALL cars on the road have to be self driving. Anyone who can't afford a self driving car and just has a human-driven car, or anyone who wants to take their vintage (human-driven) car out for a drive puts a spanner in the works.
WE have to develop normal driving first so it should be very easy for self driving cars to switch back into that mode when they detect a non networked car.
There are solutions to every problem but capitalism doesn't incentivize implementing those solutions if they cost more than they make - everything has to be a "return on investment" in our society/economy heh
The funniest thing is, when you automatize cars, and increase speeds, decrease stops, and block off the streets from all but autonomous cars... if you squint, you can see it as a continuous stream of travellers, getting on, and getting off at predetermined locations... you know, kinda like a train 🤣
@@Hansalicious Very wasteful Clogs the roads up and everything is slow. A bus takes up the space of maybe two cars and carries up to 60 times as many people. It also means that there is far less CO2 emission per passenger mile. Public transport is best in densely populated areas.
You somehow make a 54 minute video feel like a 20 minute one with your quick pacing! I just wish I could get my family to watch your vids rather than having to paraphrase them at gatherings when the topic of pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit comes up
you took english class in school right? try that old tactic of making jot notes as the video plays and then you can easily sum it up without missing a point.
doing this removes the repetetive notion that "america is car centric and the car companies are behind it". guy really likes to mention this and probably did so 30+ times this video.
Good to see you here! I have the same problem, I can't seem to put these things in my own words in a way that would be nearly as convincing for family.
it’s amazing that this channel exists and seems like no one in the right position is watching those videos and says „this guy is completely right - lets show that to the world“ it makes me insane! your videos are pure gold and such a value added
It's funny that corporations will say that disabled people will benefit from self-driving cars, not just because car dependency created the problem in the first place, but because self-driving wheelchairs have got to be a million times easier of a problem to solve than self-driving cars.
Amazing the sudden concern for disabled people and the poor anytime restricting cars is suggested. Amazing how quickly it evaporates when spending money on public transport is suggested.
I’d love to hear one of these companies explain how their self driving car is going to help someone with mobility issues get from the car to the door or take their shopping inside
@@donrobertson4940 I think it's both for propaganda purposes, but also sometimes just ignorance. Many people have little contact with anyone disabled. From the windshield, they only see that there are parking spots for disabled people, so they take a very car centric view of disability. They don't take a bus, and see the way many people actually get around since accessible vehicles are expensive. They don't know anyone who has a visual disability who has to cross a street. Or people with medical problems where, if they now can only cross a street on one of those ridiculous pedestrian bridges there's no way they can anymore. Like all of the money poured into self driving cars couldn't made more subway stations wheelchair accessible.
"Tech companies proudly say that they 'move fast and break things' and maybe that broken thing will be your spine under a robotaxi, but that's a risk they're willing to take" was I the only one that heard that line in the voice of Cave Johnson?
I've worked for many tech companies and that attitude is terrible even if less safety-critical situations. Its amazing that software and technology works at all with some of the things I've seen. Keep "tech companies" away, we need engineering companies.
@@username7763 Elon Musk apparently hates bright colors, so he discourages the usual yellow and orange used for safety. Definitely keep the tech people away. Many tech companies (also worked for some) are offering products that just barely work. That might not be horrible if you're talking a video game that you can patch later, but awful for anything where people can get killed. There are more reliable software and companies, but they are usually more niche and industry specific.
I moved from Minsk, Belarus to Vilnius, Lithuania a couple years ago, and the thing I still mourn to this day is the metro. These days I'm forced to travel at least 3 hours a day by bus on the same stinky, loud, busy roads: to work, uni, and then back home - I live out in the sticks. With a metro, I used to be able to get across the city in 15 minutes. I genuinely can't fathom how painful it must be to not know this luxury, and take pride in your car dependency as a nation-defining trait.
А еще в Европе нет ванн, где можно полежать и почитать книгу каким-нибудь зимним вечером :) серьезно, в России я никогда не чувствовал себя так холодно, как в Италии, как бы парадоксально это ни звучало
The population of Minsk is >2M, Vilnius is slightly over >0.5M. Building metro is not always the most feasible solution, it depends on various factors, such as cost of construction, population density, type of soil, etc. Metro is very expensive to build and maintain; if it's not enough people to use it, the train interval would become longer, which will further divert people from using it, making problem worse. Improperly implemented, it can turn into a huge tax burdain. Ilya Varlamov had some good posts on this topic in the past, search it. There are good and cheaper alternatives to metro in cities that aren't big enough for it, such as high-speed tram (tram lines that are isolated from city car traffic). Problem getting around Vilnius is not the absense of metro, but the current transportation system that isn't great. There are ways to impove it without spending billions of euros to build a metro system that might not solve problems.
The fact that Germany has so much pride in their automobile industry really gets me. There's fantastic engineering in some of these companies, I wish it were employed to a more society-friendly end.
It is difficult to build the underground in a city that's relatively flat and near a river. Ground water level is a constant concern. Sometimes it's just not worth the engineering effort required.
This video is great. It starts out stressful and dystopian, then ends with a calm "there are actual solutions, here they are, they are easy and better". Your presentation never ceases to impress me.
Except that, if you've been watching the channel for years, you realize that the solutions have been there all along and people in North America are still dead set against them. And then you watch elections and you understand that people aren't interested in solutions, period. They are interested in feeling powerful and in control--of an oversized pickup truck from which they can yell out insults to anyone who dares to walk, cycle, or use public transit.
The basic premise that self-driving cars will reduce traffic seems suspect to me on a fundamental level: if X number of people commute every day to a location at a certain time, then at least X number of people will _still_ be commuting at that same time, in vehicles about the same size, and therefore filing up the roads just as much. Even if these cars are able to communicate and autonomously coordinate with each other, there's not enough enhancement available in that to make up for the physics that is space-inefficient objects occupying a limited space. And that's before what you note in the vid where even more traffic will be placed on the road network thereby taking up even more space. The only 'advantage' might be that we can now read a book as we move at a crawl -- which we can already do on a train (while getting there faster with less impact). Thanks for the video! And for that historical comparison between Utrecht and (fake) London ON -- that's just WILD.
Yes, but originally the argument was, that even though X number of people will *still* be commuting at that same time, X would only be about 30% of everybody commuting. So in this case we would only need maybe peak 40% of vehicles. This seemed reasonable to me when I first heard about this argument from Tony Seba five years ago. However, as I know see how self-driving cars seem to get implemented and that this is an even worse version of Uber, I'm now absolutely convinced, that it will not lead to most people not owning a car, but to people even wanting another car for their children and elderly, who today are not able to drive on their own! Jason's argument is absolutely convincing that instead of one trip trying to do three destinations in sequence there would be three trips in parallel instead.
@@patrickhanft Aye, AV "car sharing" in that regard that might reduce the total number of vehicles needed for ownership/transportation, but from a traffic perspective (and therefore the speed of travel/commuting) it wouldn't improve things as the same volumes would be on the roads traveling in the same direction at the same times. That said, demand/surge pricing could be implemented by the AV companies and therefore could push people to spread out their arrival times, and that would have the potential make a big difference. Just as would arrival time based congestion pricing to enter downtown. :)
@@KannikCat In isolation this is true but there is a argument to be made that AV car sharing can lead to a modality shift. Let's say we have someone who for their work commute can and want's to take the train. They own a car for certain other trips. Then taking the train can be relatively expansive and this person could logically decide to take the car (they have standing around anyway) to work. This person might consider getting rid of their car if "car sharing" is an "good" option. They will then start taking the train for their daily commute and the shared car/taxi for other trips. On the other hand, "better"car sharing can also lead people to use shared cars instead of public transport. In the end it is a complex dynamic and it is difficult to predict what impact self-driving cars will have.
if I'm not mistaken the idea is basically that big traffic jams are often caused by people slowly accelerating one after another like one of those "infinity cogs" (the ones where the last cog won't turn until the heat death of the universe. That principle). And self-driving cars technically could solve that by accelerating like a hive-mind. But then you got the arguably better alternative of..... public infrastructure and making sure that that works properly and safely within urban areas
That AV only intersection with razor wire topped fencing truly is dystopian. And the way things are going I can easily imagine seeing it within my lifetime becoming reality.
Seeing that before/after of the highway being turned back into a canal in Utrecht actually gave me chills. This is what renderite artists working for their corporate overlords have promised car development will help do to cities for decades and here it is in action, actually happening, by doing the exact opposite.
As a Brooklyn born person now living in the burbs (a city that’s literally one big strode and side roads), it deeply saddens me we’re starting to see self driving cars here in America before improving our public transportation. The bus here stops by once an hour and is very limited, that’s about it for it. Every time I go to Tokyo I feel so alive with all the pathing available and people to travel along side with. A city with good infrastructure is a different life than one here. Hope to move out soon
I have little to no desire ever visiting the US because of things like this. There's a museum in New York and like the space coast maybe. But I just don't like driving longer distances. I just took the train home this weekend to borrow a car off of my folks and of course to visit them, 3h drive time back to my student apartment. By 1 ½ h I was feeling restless and wanted it to end already. The bus goes every 15 minutes outside the home I was raised in, with plenty of connections to the rest of the city. And there's like 50k people in the entire municipality. I didn't even need to drive for my first commute, there was a train every hour, just walk 2 km on the other end on good pedestrian lanes in the 7k municipality.
@@namlem_ Why would nuses being self driving or not affect at all, if you think the the budget for buses and public transport is being drained by the salaries of bus drivers you are delusional
I've always told people that the belief of a robotaxi being non-trivially cheaper than a human taxi is not likely. First off, Uber's cut of the fare - the part that doesn't even go to the driver - isn't going to get any smaller, just because there's no driver. Then, you add to the the cost of actually operating the vehicle (including the deadheading), which, unlike the gig economy model, the company actually has to now pay themselves, rather than outsource to someone else. Then, you add the cost of all the extra hardware and licensing fees for the software to implement the actual self-driving tech, plus the cost of humans to clean the cars, inspect the sensors, remotely operate stuck vehicles, tow trucks to rescue broken vehicles, and probably a whole bunch of other things I'm not thinking of. I would not at all be shocked if, at the end of a day, operating a robotaxi turns out to cost just as much as paying a few bucks to a gig economy worker to drive the car manually.
It was surreal watching uber prices change in realtime… I lived in LA from 2013-2018 and lemme just say… when I first got there? $10-15 to go from USC to Hollywood on Saturday night, but by the time I left in 2018? That same ride would’ve been at least $30.
But then they won't be everywhere, right? If they're still as expensive as taxis, there's no way many people will transport their three kids in individual self-driving taxis every morning.
That's ultimately all it's about. Wealthy people wanted segregated private transit that they didn't have to share with a filthy pleb driver so they invented automated taxis.
An associate of mine who worked on Google's self driving car initiative told me that they begged many European cities to allow them to train self driving cars, including Amsterdam, Berlin, Paris, Copenhagen, and Zurich. The answers were not just "no" but the equivalent of a most polite and emphatic "F U".
@@flo8517 the funny thing is, federal and most states in germany suffer incredible car-centric governments, but _every_ city figured out, that self driving cars would only bring people in cars who today use busses, trams, etc. And that would crash every cities roads, hinder emergency service, hinder every basic service every city needs. The cities want LESS cars. Asking the bavarian government could have worked, maybe. Asking cities themselves? Lol, no.
Nice! I believe @NotJustBikes underestimates Europe's willingness and ability to regulate and stand up to big (US-)corporations. In particular I don't think the "US-trained cars on EU roads" will be a major issue. If the cars are not safe on EU roads then they are not allowed here, period. (Also the fact that this could give a leg up to European companies that are also working on self-driving cars doesn't hurt.)
My son and I run the gauntlet of SUVs badly parked in the no stopping zone outside his school every morning. On our bikes. Everyone blames the other people's SUVs for making the road so dangerous they have to use their SUVs - which, of course, they 'need'.
The AIM video is scary beyond even the "It would suck for a pedestrian to try to walk across this" reasoning. One of the things that isn't thought about is nature. Deer don't give a shit about the laws of man. Or moose. Or a flock of wild turkeys. Or an ice storm. One miscalculation by one vehicle that isn't being calculated by any others results in hundreds of autonomous cars piling up before the ones that can actually stop will be able to. And good luck getting to ground zero by rescue crews with a four way traffic jam with cars in an algorithmic deadlock unable to make a hole for fire and rescue...
Yeah I really can’t imagine this actually being implemented in real life, or at least not with that many lanes. There’s just too much that can go wrong.
I think we need to start adjusting our expectations on technological progress. We have been very spoiled for booming technological progress for 100+ years but it’s actually slowing down not speeding up. Historically this bump in technological progress is actually incredibly short. It stands to reason that it can’t continue on an upward trajectory forever and instead we might be reaching the limits of what’s even possible. History shows that in contrast to the idea of a straight line of progress, we have very little if any progress up until the 1,600s and before that it was incredible slow and it would even regress for new civilizations to have to rediscover old concepts. All that is to say if we stop achieving any more technological progress (ei self driving cars improving “inevitably”) it shouldn’t come as a shock. It would just be man kind returning to the status quo of being stagnant. Historians would look back and chuckle at the idea that we were basing projections and expectations on a tiny anomaly in our grand history.
Car-less drivers? Is that safe? Has it been sufficiently tested? What if the walker gets stuck and there isn't a car to take over so they get to their destination? What if they walk or bike into something?
is this meant to be sarcasm against the idiotic idea of driverless, car-centric cities, or attempting to mock the criticism of it cause I genuinely can't tell
one time when my brother was 10 he wasn't looking where he was going and walked directly into a telephone pole. 3 stitches above the eye. horrifying. thank you for finally drawing attention to this pressing issue. car-less drivers are. not. safe!!
@@bogwife7942 I once texted and drove as a “carless driver”. Almost hit my face on a street sign post, but damn the steering felt so precise and agile when I dodged it!
Self-Driving cars are a solution to a problem that only exists because of cars. I was at a "Q+A" from a car company trying to promote self driving. When asked, they had to admit that the cars are bad at detecting kids and wheelchair-users, because they are to small. When I asked why exactly we need this instead of better public transit, they huffed and puffed and didn't answer the question. My "so you'd rather kill kids and disabled people than actually make society better" got me thrown out.
Well, when the goal is to make money by selling sell self driving cars, with any benefit or detriment to society being an irrelivant (except in so far as it is beneficial or detrimental to the associated propaganda campaign) side effect, that's not really a surprising outcome.
5 днів тому+8
Everything that exists is a solution to a problem that only exists because a solution to a different problem is imperfect.
I am dutch, and when I went to Canada I realized the shopping experience is completely different. When me and some girlfriend go shopping in the Netherlands you walks through the city centre along site tiny boutiques, its great, but in Canada the atmosphere is different, in the city centre are big roads, and you don't like walking there. You can go to these big shopping malls but most of those also have a busy atmosphere. When shopping in the Netherlands in the city centre the atmosphere is made with more greenery and no cars. I love city centers where cars are not allowed!
That shopping/neighbourhood experience is exactly why small retail businesses in brick and mortar stores are dying. Outside of small towns it is miserable to walk down a main street.
One of your best videos - I love how all your previous content meshed together. It also had a dystopian feel, reminiscent of Yuval Noah Harari's books.
And reminder : road fatality is decreasing in Europe (especially in Eastern Europe which is one of the leading factor in the road fatality figure) whereas it is increasing in the US
I love how the marketing video of Ford shows adding more public transportation, bike lanes and narrowing roads will make everything better while trying to sell you cars :D
Jeeze.. I feel like screaming. It's so frustrating. We have to get corporations out of social planning. Period. Install more protected bike-lanes. Install more busses. Install more trains! They are all cheap, good for health, good for environment, and SAFE.
@@ttaibe People must be re-educated, then. Those who believe capitalism is god will come to find, some sooner, some later, that capitalism is little more than a cancer. Even money, to some extent, was a bad invention. We created it as a way to cope with things like how much grain to trade for a goat, but now, instead of the acquisition of resources, the acquisition of money itself has allowed fascism to rear its ugly head once again. I'm not claiming to have all the answers. I just know that what capitalism has evolved into definitely is not the answer humanity needs (much less the rest of life on the planet).
I'm living in switzerland, and sadly a shopping center in my city wanted to rebuild itself to renovate, make more business spaces, living spaces near the center and promote walk-in customers by building more dedicated bus stops. However the project has ben on a stall for many years now due to a court ruling that the project description does not include enough spaces for cars...sometimes current laws can be a pain in the ass, even if companies do want to build....
Yeah, we need to kill minimum parking requirements. I find it odd that they managed to be adopted in a city in Switzerland considering the extent of your transit networks.
@@heinzmustermann8416 here in Wellington you can find plenty of people complaining about cycle lanes and how they are killing the CBD since you can't park anymore. There's okay public transport (good by nz standards maybe Europeans wouldn't think it's that good idk). I admit being encumbered on a bus isn't great there's definitely a limit to how much you can carry and it does take a lot longer since it stops more and the route isn't as direct but these people just can get out of car brain. Wellington is probably the least car-dependent city in nz. I guess they hate cyclists and just don't use public transit.
@@timothystamm3200 In Germany minimum parking requirements can be violated ! You just pay a fee to the city that then "claims" to use the money to make parking possible itself.....^^ Wich the city doesn't. But it's still cheaper than building parkingplaces for your employees. I think It would be better if the city would take care of the transport of the enmployees of the company and would charge the company with that. This way no one suffers.
@svr5423 If you have enough transit and cycling options, people don't need to drive, buddy. Get out of here posting such carbrained nonsense on this channel and this video no less. Essential my ass. The human race lasted for millenia without parking requirements, and transit and cycling is superior to the damn car. Let's learn from our mistakes, not insist on repeating them.
@@timothystamm3200 Well despite what most people think about our transit system, the truth is most people still do have a car, especially in the smaller cities like the one I live in. I get where they were coming from, but the court was still highly criticised because it was not in a position to judge wheather more parking is needed or not, because they were all lawyers and not city planners that decided this. All the city planners on this project agreed that the project encompassed enough spaces.
@@methos4866 to them that would be just zip-tying a flamethrower or two on the front bumper, and they would definitely choose those ‘Boring’ company flamethrowers, because Elon.
"will" umm I doubt it, considering the amount of data it will be trained on it will be the safest car on the road, since it has no ego problems it won't go faster than it knows it can handle
I like how at a certain point this video stopped being a facade and started just explaining how we are already barelling towards a cyberpunk/blade runner esque dystopian future, with nothing we can do to stop it from the powers that be who wilfully ignore the deadly effects of those settings on the people who lived there.
As someone that deals with pretty intense motion sickness in cars and busses I always shake my head when people argue in favor of cars when it comes to disability. Sure, *some* people are best accommodated by cars, but in my case that's rolling the dice on whether or not I have a miserable rest of my day. I'm very lucky to live in the Netherlands because being stuck with car centric infrastructure would absolutely wreck my life.
Just realized: if I take a ride in a car right now, I can inform the driver about my motion sickness, so they can take it into account. If I get sick in an autonomous car? I'm out of luck!
@@krob9145 I've also gotten more sensitive to it again in recent years. I genuinely thought I had largely grown out of it but nope, it's back with a vengeance!
@@breanna_bee I've found it's worse with most taxis since they're time sensitve and can spend time swerving here and there trying to rat run and failing because of road changes. Telling them doesn't help so I avoid taxis as much as possible. Telling family and friends doesn't work with me either. One continues to drive worse than a taxi driver and laughes. You would have thought he learnt from the time I ended up projectile vomiting over everyone in the car one time and that was before I got over sensitive. I turn down all offers to give me a ride somewhere and get there on my own steam by bike or train.
@@krob9145 Even though I don't get motion sickness, when I'm in a car I still want to be comfortable. Why would anyone driving purposefully want to swerve and accelerate/brake so hard for no reason... Even from a purely selfish point of view, I want to be gentle on my car to reduce wear and tear anyways. People are idiots.
They should make self-driving busses. And make them _really_ long. And put them on rails so they don't need a shitty AI to operate them. And instead of an app, you just get on one at a station.
A Pater-Noster Train, always running. From A to B to C .... and back. Full Circle. With free energy, you're not wasting anything and you can start thinking like that...
Also, trains are much simpler to operate than cars, and we've had autonomous trains since the 90s. They basically just have 2 controls, acceleration and breaks.
i feel like self-driving cars is just a fundamental misunderstanding about what the *problem* even is? its not that drivers are not good enough at driving (though sometimes, that IS the problem as well), but that there are simply TOO MANY CARS. and just putting more cars on the roads, just this time without drivers, is just not a solution to anything!
In theory, self-driving cars can increase road capacities by a whole lot. Putting more cars on the roads means people are getting more utility out of them, that is a good thing. We want public infrastructure used. Coordinated self-driving cars can re-route to reduce congestion, they can all start and stop at the same time instead of the stop-and-go traffic we have now. But in-practice we are very far away from this. That is the problem. While in theory they are great, in practice they are terrible. And I don't think they will improve much in our lifetimes at least.
@@svr5423 At least in the USA we have massive amounts of unused land. There is plenty of space to spread out but people clump into cities. Part of this makes sense, we get shared city services and infrastructure. But it also causes a lot of problems. We need cities, but enough of the super dense, being surrounded by millions of people cities. Humans didn't evolve for urban life.
@@svr5423 There are not too many cars because there are too many people, there are too many cars because cars have insane subsidies to prop up big companies. The same number of people with a tenth of the cars would be better for the people, for climate change, for everything. Pretending cars isn't the problem and instead people need to be removed shows you're a corporate stooge.
@@username7763 People have been living in cities far longer than they've been driving tho. Look at cities built before the 1900s, they are far denser than cities built after because they were built for people. It's convenient for people to live in dense cities so they can quickly get to where they want/need to be. Being overly spread out makes cities far more expensive to maintain and live in. The larger square footage requires more work to maintain and makes them annoying to navigate. Of course you don't want to get too dense, people need privacy & cramming too many people in one place is dangerous. Still, it's probably better for cities to be too dense than too spread out. PS: It's silly to make a statement about "Humans didn't evolve for...". 1) Evolution don't work that way. Evolution has no direction or goal beyond "survive", and even then it only aims for "good enough". 2) We're using magic lightning-boxes to send symbols across the world...where the hell do you see that in nature?
0:42 You know what would make our roads actually safer? Get rid of all the cars (self-driving or not) and replace them with a propper network of public transport, prefferably on rails, as well as bicylces.
Sounds great until you realise you then have to build a train line to every hamlet and house, what we need is both good public transport and cars where they are best
I know a guy who works at Yandex's self-driving car division, and he gave a bit of a different perspective from across the pond. Unlike the cars in the US, autonomous cars in Russia are not allowed to break any traffic laws whatsoever, and that creates its own problems, because it turns out that human drivers routinely break the laws and expect others to do the same. As a result, a perfectly lawful self-driving car has to expect outside behaviours different from what it's programmed to do, and at the same time preferrably not get into situations where it will have to do something that drivers around it don't expect it to. For example, one of the laws is that cars are not allowed on sidewalks when a pedestrian is on it. Most drivers let the pedestrian cross their lane and then go, but autonomous cars are not allowed to do that, they have to wait from the time the first leg enters the crossing and only go when the last leg leaves, which leads to stunlocks from irregular streams of pedestrians and dangerous erroneous emergency braking events. It's a problem that's really hard to solve without kicking every driver off the road and replacing everyone with robots.
Humans can think, so when a human driver encounters something they didn't encounter when learning how to drive, there's a good chance they will be able to get everyone to safety. Self-driving cars cannot think for themselves, so they can only draw from what they've been trained on. Any time they encounter something outside of what they're used to, they will react unpredictably or fail to react at all until it's far too late.
We have one traffic regulation that states "you are not allowed to stop general flow of traffic even if this will violate other traffic regulations, as long as you can do it safely". For a human it is completly natural to cross a double line and be on the wrong side of the road for 30m if a truck is blocking your lane to off-load cars and will be there for the next 20 minutes ... Another issue - there are ~200 countries on the planet and every country has its own traffic regulations. Most of them are similar enough to a point that you can drive almost anywhere BUT to release an actual self-driving car that won't get tickets because of traffic regulation violations would be super challanging for any 1 country. The programming for self-driving woull need country specific routines and updates or simply GPS-lock to individual countries (e.g. Tesla in the US) and never release abroad.
Russia already has issues getting any butter into their grocery stores... and they bother with self-driving cars ?! Talk about skewed economic priorities.
@@ZemplinTemplar Russia is not the Soviet Union where everything was state-sponsored, Yandex is a private company and can do what they want. And it's not like they started yesterday anyway. They were considered one of world's leaders in self-driving before they got excluded from all the discussions due to you know what.
8:35 and that exactly is why self-driving cars (and other software-driven products) are not a technology problem but a regulatory one. The moment a tech company will be fully liable for the damage that their products cause, they have a real monetary incentive to make their products better. A Waymo car running a redlight is not an upsi daisy but a serious product defect that (potentially) caused harm and the company that build the product must be fined for it.
@@vamoscruceros Pretty sure self driving cars still need insurance to drive on the road..right? so isn't the regulatory problem already being dealt with via the insurance industry?
@@craigcampbell3921 cars that have to be insured to drive on the road have a massive financial incentive to not kill or hurt people.. if autonomous cars were as bad as you predict then no one would be able to run them on the roads due to the impossibly high insurance premiums... Autonomous cars will almost certainly be as good as if not better than the shaved apes that currently bonce them around the roads today..
I’m making my dissertation thesis on the impact of mobility systems in the identity of people living in cities and your video basically (with other intended purpose) summarize the issues flawlessly! Great content!
You may want to add in energy aspects on which everything depends. The more energy which is available, the more transport is fuelled to a dehumanising degree. Nothing moves without energy and almost all human problems are reduced by using less energy in total. Not just transportation. Money is just embodied energy IOUs.
When it comes to speed limit, I think people do the mistake of using "Self driving car" as some kind of magic spell that removes all problems. The stopping distance increases with the square of the speed of the vehicle, no matter how the car is driven. This means that the distance needed between cars will increase by the square of the speed of the cars. You will then have the situation that the throughput of cars is higher on lower speeds. Also, a car, no matter who drives it, will have parts that break down. Breaks get worn, pumps need to be replaced, hydraulic lines can leak, and so on for all parts of the car. Combine this with a strong lobby organization and a constant drive for higher profits, and you'll see badly maintained cars swooshing around super fast, because they're self driving and therefor safe. Then there will be surprising 100 car pileups when a car inevitably has some failure in an important part. There is a simple solution though: Connect the cars together and have them on a specially designed road that keeps the separate cars in place if one of them would fail. Hopefully we can see more of these types of vehicles in the future!
Stopping distance is already a problem with all vehicles carrying one person, its a problem on bikes too after all. Would you be opposed to self driving bikes? If not, then clearly your problem is not with self driving cars, but cars as a whole. As to maintenance causing huge crashes, the aviation industry is a good example of how this can easily be solved by heavy regulation and transparency. Trains also crash, they just crash far less often. If we could get self driving cars to similar crash rates and reduce the space taken up in cities by roads and parking lots due to increases in efficiency, would this not hit all the goals you are hoping for with trains?
You forgot to mention one crucial element in the Enshittification of roadways: The ads that you will have to endure during your subscription ride, and the prices the ad companies have to cough up to outbid each other in the third phase of Enshittification.
24:00 I work at a liquor store, and the number of people I see making DoorDash deliveries for things like a single bottle of vodka, a single bottle of wine, a half-bottle of cognac, or *4 fucking single shots of rum* is staggering. It is absolutely the case that this shit is inducing demand for trivial purchases that enrich company shareholders. Not to mention, they take advantage of immigrants and recently laid-off workers to fill their coffers by being their 'contractors'. It's sickening. And we're about to give them more power over our roads and lives.
@@seanmurphree4716 I work customer service for liquor store delivery and I keep seeing people who live maybe a 3 minute walk from the store ordering delivery. I saw one yesterday who lived upstairs from the store, and they were just buying a single bottle of wine as well. Idk if they just don't realise how close the store is or what, but I can't imagine paying a delivery fee more than the value of the item to save myself a 5 minute round trip.
I think the gig economy should be abolished, and any company that wants things delivered should simply do it the old school way, either through a delivery firm with employees or by hiring some themselves.
To be fair, if there's anything I'm okay with people outsourcing to delivery services for, it's alcohol. I'd much much rather have them use a delivery driver than drive drunk themselves. Oh and idk about your specific business, but where I'm at I know some drivers will do a multi stop pickup for booze when all the stuff can't be found at a single location At least, I think thats what I did on drizzly before, it's been a while
@subjekt5577 in a walkable transit oriented city being drunk is a lot less of a risk. Hell if you follow normal rules for not overconsuming, like the no more than two drinks at dinner rule, then you probably won't even notice as you walk and ride transit back to home.
@@subjekt5577 Ours are specifically booze-only orders. Lots of complaints about people only ordering one bottle, them having to drive 5 miles to deliver it, and only getting paid $3.
You mentioned that AVs might increase traffic by cruising on the streets to avoid having to park, but you didn't even mention another factor: traffic direction depends on the time of day. You have plenty of people going downtown in the morning and back to the suburbs in the evening. So even if robotaxis park somewhere outside of town, in the morning, instead of congestion going downtown, you will have congestion going outbound as well, with lots of empty AVs looking to pick up the second round of passengers. And then congestion as all the empty AVs head out to their suburban parking spots. And congestion in the afternoon as all the empty AVs head back downtown to pick up their passengers. And on and on.
What can you do about Self-Driving Cars in your city? Well first you're going to want a glass bottle, any glass bottle will do, then take a handkerchief and... Sorry my lawyer has advised me to shut up now.
there was an anime about this problem, though their solution is to have a task force of drivers driving old sports cars armed with guns to stop robocars lol. it was 2000, okay? EDIT: the is anime is éX-Driver . I would also like to recommend "éX-Driver on Autonomous Vehicles" a video by isyourguy which talks about the anime and how it didn't realize the amount of potential of its premise.
@@beat-man5167 Slight tangent but man YT search sucks, searching "ex driver on autonomous vehicle" just gives pages upon pages of actual autonomous vehicle videos.
Living in Canada really showed me for the first time how ridiculous strip malls are. The parking areas are huge, you can fit a whole town in a larger strip mall and the best thing is they are mostly empty as you can see in 49:45 It is actually getting worse with most sold cars now being SUVs that just get bigger and bigger and drivers not realizing how big and heavy their new cars are. This trend to larger and heavier cars negates any positive effects from EVs and creates more demand and pollution. I really think that city centres should be designed for inviting pedestrian spaces first that drive the economy rather than busy noisy streets, where no one wants to sit on the sidewalk or outside of shops.
Parking minimums are another problem that definitely needs addressing. Most of them are way too big, even if everybody drove cars. I can't believe how absurdly big some lots are.
Winnipeg Canada lots of MALL parking lots are being taken over by satellite buildings now reducing the amount of parking and increasing the amount of retail space some malls are now at the point that during peak times there is NO parking and cars are in gridlock circling looking for parking and NOT finding any
I was instructed a long time ago by an SUV owner that the safest approach to driving was to have as much steel as possible between you and the road. So much for "SMART" cars.
I had a free 30-day trial of FSD just a few months ago before selling my 2021 Tesla Y. It was mildly beneficial in absolutely perfect conditions, like a wide open highway with minimal traffic, broad daylight, and well-marked lanes. It farked up a lot in other conditions, and often overreacted to nearby traffic, stomping the brakes and giving us whiplash due to "threats" that any human driver would have ignored. It misinterpreted service road speed limits as interstate speed limits and slowed to 55 in the middle of 80mph traffic, yet not _once_ did it recognize a yellow off-ramp speed limit sign at all.. literally every time I drove to work or home, I had to manually tell it to take the ramps at 45 instead of 80. Anything less than perfectly marked lanes, any low light or precipitation, caused it to become erratic and unpredictable. Potholes? No avoidance or braking whatsoever, which is a real problem with 21" rims and rubberband tires. It was like babysitting a brand-new beginner driver that made the same mistakes all the time and never learned. I'm sure the tech will _eventually_ get better than human drivers, but it's clearly going to take much longer than expected, and it seems like the proponents are all trying to push past this long, awkward learning stage by just denying that it's a thing at all.
It’s really impressive just how thorough this video is at covering all of the different issues with self driving cars. I just hope that this video remains a warning for what type of future we shouldn’t be working towards, and not a documentary of where we went wrong
Probably the most problematic thing to self driving cars to me is, it is not possible to communicate with them as another traffic user. So much little things are solved on the street by looking a driver in the eyes and understanding each other. If I want to cross a street I can see if a driver sees me or not, that's not possible with an AV. And there are lot if situations where you want to look someone in the eyes in traffic.
In our country we have traffic signs which have the text: seek eye contact when you … turn onto a side street, or leave a construction site, or use an exit etc. (text in Dutch of course), the sign is more and more used at dangerous situations when motor vehicle drivers use exits or side streets and therefore have to cross the bicycle lane or cycle path. This seeking eye contact will be difficult if there is no one behind the wheel.
That might actually get fixed with Connected Autonomous vehicles....the vehicles will be "talking" to each other so perhaps a human messaging system will be incorporated. You might be able to shout at another driver from the confort of your vehicle 😄.
From the video, my solution is going to be having a traffic cone with me. I am sure by the time it gets this bad there will be companies selling highly portable ones...
In 2013/2014, I asked someone at the Dept of Energy working on helping AV technology get off the ground how much they expected the technology would increase demand for car travel, and if that would offset any environmental benefits they were expecting. They said they had not thought about it before. I asked if anyone at DOE was working on that question and they said they can’t “predict or control what people do”. As a social scientist, that ignorance felt hazardous to society and borderline willful-I know DOE is now starting to think about the human side of the equation, which is great, I just wish it happened sooner.
"Cant predict what people do" is probably the most island-brain statement ever. There is multiple sciences looking into this, there is people designing emergency egress doors, buttons, handles, escape routes... Humanity is doomed
I'm going to pray that EU will force corporations to make those cars safer before allowing them to streets. And that our countries don't let them to public roads
oh they will.. i mean in germany self driving is only allowed on the highway.. and thats after some tests.. so.. that self driving cars coming on the roads.. will take time in Europe... In Europa are the Roads more complicated then in the US.. they are not so big etc. so.. of curse it will take way longer
The EU is behind in technology and funding anyway. That might be a good thing if it can slow down in a way to avoid catastrophic mistakes. But it might also be in a bad way where they only slow it down but don't stop it entirely so that it still happens but continuously behind everyone else (a slow moving horror if you will).
I am concerned about battery cars (EVs). They don’t catch fire that often, but when they do,they cause a lot of damage and if burning inside or next to buildings the extreme heat can compromise the structure of the building. The car industry was scared (almost to death) by car fires and a lot of efforts was made to avoid fires - at any cost.
I bought a used Chevy Volt this year (a plug-in hybrid). And I quickly realized I couldn't tell if the engine was running or not, I had to be driving slowly on a freshly paved road to hear the engine come on. Yeah I can hear it when it really revs up on the highway, but when the engine isn't doing a ton of work it's just not as loud as the tires on the pavement.
At least electric vehicles used to be quiet at lower speeds, but now regulations require them to blast sound at lower speeds for safety and the result is that small ICE vehicles are quieter than electric.
The part of your video where you say "move fast and break things" and how the companies are okay with the thing being broken being people's spines, that needs to be turned into an ad and appear all over the internet and screens in major cities. Honestly, why isn't that already a thing? Such an ad could become viral.
So, we may be faced with hordes of empty cars, endlessly circling the neighborhood so there is always one nearby. Or taking all the parking spots. We need to institute limits on the numbers available, and to bring back Cab Stands.
There's an interesting problem that someone brought up recently that stuck with me. Imagine a teenager whose first car is self-driving. They, for the most part, never have to drive at all except in situations where the car can't drive itself. Snowy, icy weather, heavy fog, confusing parking lots, etc. HOWEVER, since the teen has barely any actual experience in driving in mundane conditions, the times where they are forced to actually drive they will be terribly out of practice, leading to reduced performance in these critical moments. I'm a software engineer and I think the same is true for programmers who rely to heavily on AI to do their work. They'll just end up sucking worse than normal in situations the AI can't handle.
I would assume the level 5 AV has ZERO controls so the ONLY option at that point is to find other modes to finish there trip for me the level 3 and 4 systems are what scare me
Yes, this is a great point and is a problem of any system with a human-AI interface. A lot of research has been done with this in the air traffic control space. They found that of course through incorporating AI you can greatly increase the number of flights that a single air traffic controller can oversee, but the problems arrive once the system goes down... now the controller is met with far too many flights for a human to handle on their own so they're screwed! And so are the people on the planes...
To me that goes back to one of my main arguments against using AI for anything. If something is worth doing, but you would rather use AI to do it rather than learn how. You don't really want to do it. It's just taking an extremely lazy and unproductive way out
@@user-armas anything dealing with multiple programs which interract with eachother this could be anything from detecting player input and telling another program on the server to run something to working with frameworks/libraries which help abstract large ammounts of code into single functions and give greater QoL to developers or even seperating code into seperate programs for readability and organisation
This problem will be settled in Europe about fifteen minutes after the first driverless car in Paris tries to negotiate the Arc de Triomphe. I hope I'm there to see it.
It is an acceptable risk because so many of us are dying today. Especially Americans. And maybe THAT is a problem that could be worked on in more ways than one.
To be fair, "On average, 1 pedestrian dies from a car crash every 88 minutes in the U.S." and I doubt very much that all of these accidents involve a self-driving vehicle Question is, are these companies willing to invest resources to make their autopilots actually safer than a typical human driver. Or even equally safe
@@andrewch4066 Some of them can and will. Some of those again will be successful. The systems that are out in traffic today are significantly safer than humans, if you count systems where people take over when the computer gets confused. In the USA, this is a very low bar, since traffic is basically a continuous massacre if you measure by body count.
Thanks to all of my channel supporters who made this video possible!
If you'd like to support Not Just Bikes, the best way is to sign up to Nebula: go.nebula.tv/notjustbikes
You'll also get to watch all of my videos early and ad-free, along with videos from hundreds of other talented creators.
Already a Nebula subscriber? Then go watch this video over there!
nebula.tv/videos/notjustbikes-how-selfdriving-cars-will-destroy-cities
"We want all the positives of a tram but with the negatives of a car" - how i feel about robotaxis
The cynical Part of me thanks that some company is just going to say fuck it and make remote driven cars with modern cruise control and sensors driven by Indonesian
what about a big red button
@@NotJustBikes I’m from the utopia of St.Thomas 😂 moved to Vancouver. Good enough.
BRUHH SELF DRIVING BICYCLES
Notably, in the Tempe incident, the self-driving car that killed that pedestrian HAD a safety driver. The safety driver was using their phone when the incident happened.
🤦♂️
Depressing.
In ISO there's a concept called 'reasonably foreseeable misuse'. That is, you should not account just for people making technical mistakes in using your technology, but also for the mistakes from misuse that you can realistically predict will happen based on what the technology does. For example, opening a microwave oven when it's still running because you're in a rush or the food inside is burning: hence the existence of mandatory interlocks on the door. These physically cut power to the microwave generator the moment the door opens, which makes them practically infallible, unlike tech bro type software controls (also, it means they damage the device each time you crank that door open, so please use the off button).
If your technology leads more than a rounding error of drivers to ignore necessary safety precautions, ignoring that on the basis of 'but their fault' is criminal negligence.
@@Blaze6108 "more than a rounding error' is still a lot of leeway at the sort of scales involved.
I was also disappointed he didn't mention this. I'd further mention that the incident happened at 10PM and, with images released, it'd have been hard for a human driving even paying attention to have reacted in time since it was dark and there was poor lighting in addition to the speed of the road.
2+ hour car rides to sit in an office for 8 hours to sit in 2+ car ride home to stream shows on the sofa. The American dream.
The American Dream is a home without shared walls. The average american car commute is 25 mins, which is shorter than the average American public transit commute (31 mins). The car commute is a little longer than the 19 min bike commute average. Only 3% of Americans have a 2 hr or longer commute, and the majority of those are public transit commuters taking commuter rail and buses.
@@JoRo-u8u But why is the public transit commute slower than the car commute? Could it be, because all the money goes to building car centric infrastructure instead of building public transit infrastructure?
wall-e is unironically the future we're looking at
In part it would be due to needing to pick up passengers while with a car you go directly where you want and it might not stop at the parking loot at ones job.
But also as you said, Many places are very car centric so public commute gets worse (some times to force people to buy cars)
@@JoRo-u8uyou mean with those ugly 2 meter gaps between houses? Just a waste of land, that cannot be used for anything and turns into a dumpster. How about just building with materials other than cardboard? I know what you are talking about regarding the shared walls, I lived in stick built hotels while being to the US - you hear everything, but I also lived all my life in concrete apartments in Europe (in different countries) - you don't hear shit from your neighbours.
The absolute fear you instilled in me when you said that autonomous vehicle companies are going to export American driving styles to Europe. Instant horror.
Very advantageous driving on the left in the UK and Ireland....not compatible with US AVs 👍
@dianataulbut2299 ooo good point!
@@dianataulbut2299 Quick hack: Just mirror all sensor input and control outputs so the software never even realizes it's driving on the left. This could be done in five minutes, probably. It'll cause issues further down the road but you know, rapid innovation, break things, etc.
i can't see these cars driving in european streets yet. we have narrow and bizarrely arranged roads lol. also i don't think it's needed
they are already trying to export American privatization to many parts of the world; it's not unreasonable to be worried. money doesn't just talk, it changes laws and landscapes
Watching this basically reminded me of that part in dead space where you have to cross the street but hundreds of automatic cars are moving at insane speed so you have to cause a crash simply to cross.
now how do we apply to AVs to rural areas?
Dead Space? Are you sure you didn't mean something else? You're on a spaceship in the middle of space, alone, with undead monsters in Dead Space....
@@jthymesthree602 Meant dead space 3 first mission
@@banthehippies2335 Ahh ok, I haven't played the 3rd one much. First two are some of my favorite games of all time though
@@jthymesthree602 ikr dead space 1&2 are the goats, 2 is my fav, 3 is just ok better with a friend
Last month I was on holiday in California and visited the Tech Interactive in San Jose. Next to the exibitions about climate change and space travel, there was also an IMAX theater where they had different movies that you could go to. We went to 'The City of the Future' and I, as a big fan of your channel, was very interested in what they would come up with.
They followed a civil servant from the municipality of Los Angeles who was leading a project in the city to improve it for better mobility in the future. One of the things that they did in the movie was to visit different places in the world to see what they could learn, and the first place they went to was the Netherlands. Me being from the Netherlands and watching your channel thought 'Ooh wow, lets see what they learned from the Netherlands, there is so much to choose from'.
But then the two things they took from the Netherlands, and I am not kidding, was a self sailing boat in the canals of Amsterdam and some business building where they put a lot of sensors throughout the building so that it could detect when someone in the room so that the lights and heating could be turned on automatically. That was it!!
And then at the end of the movie, when they were talking about their ideal city of the future, their solution to traffic congestion was even more stupid than automomous cars, it was flying cars 😂😂😂
It was both the most stupid and the most American 'City of the Future' video I had ever seen.
Ah yes, flying cars - promised forever, but realistically would just drain the wallets of all but the wealthy, and put an even larger demand on the resources of our planet.
That's hilarious. You can't even make a parody of that!
I'm born and raised in this country and still can't get over how blind people are to the bubble we live in.
the "smart" building in your "city of the future" I have experienced 15 years ago in New Westminster BC Canada and they built a NEW grocery store walking distance from my home and
I would go shop late or early to avoid the crowds and the isles would light up bright as you entered and dim down once you left
all the fridges and freezers would be dark unless you where within 2 meters or so of there door
you walked along in a carpet of light as they turned on and back off again once passed - was a "cool" design and I believe mostly to SHOW "GREEN" over actual power savings
LA is by itself an absolute dystopia. LAX airport is surrounded by a sea of highways and has no subway connection whatsoever, yet in the airport building they make stupid announcements saying "Let's build a world-class transit system for Los Angeles"
My dad keeps insisting it's _inevitable_ that all transportation in the future will be self "driving" flying cars. I'm not sure if he's pulling my leg or if I should be worried about him.
What was most surprising to me was that when I *began* researching this video (two years ago!) it was going to be about some of the technical challenges that would need to be overcome in order to make self-driving cars a reality, but the conclusion was going to be that ultimately, AVs would be a good thing.
By the time I was *done* researching this topic I was absolutely horrified of our future self-driving dystopia. 😱
yeah I used to think they can't be worse than drunk cocked up drivers but they are just as bad. and all robots will be drunk drivers not just the usual human % we have now.
airplanes and trains have the best safest stats. let's do more public transportation with professional drivers who undergo tests regularly...does that sound good? good.
There are a ton of exciting new technologies that could be used to make the world better. And none of them will be.
And absolutely nothing is going to force the new technologies not to be used to make the world a horrifying dystopia. It's just deeply, deeply depressing being an old programmer who used to be excited for the utopian possibilities of things like the Internet, who spent the last few decades seeing the world consistently and forcefully choose the wrong path at absolutely every junction.
NJB I think you should maybe make a future video on the topic you slightly touched on here: Not owning anything.
The future of capitalism is looking at 0 ownership and subscription only
You could have just played that clip over and over again from Detroit: Become Human - the Autonomous-Vehicle only highway features with all the properties and features you outlined here.
I haven't thought enough about it to give you a well thought out and considered response but as someone on the centre right of politics I find it quite weird that a car centric Society is right coded. Public roads and free parking are socialist while massive companies use lobbying as a source of state capture in order to do what they do. Having your own car is individualistic and I'm definitely not against individualism but the way it currently works is that everyone else is subsidising you and I can't bring myself to like that. I'm visually impaired and I could never drive a car unless self-driving cars really do make things much much safer but that will need a robust regulatory environment and plenty of alternatives. It's not like I know anything about this but on the face of it I think that roads with less cars on them because people are on public transport would be much better for the AI models which now have to look out for less things. I suppose that just shipping more cars will be what the biggest companies would want to do. I am not totally against self-driving cars and I think they do have some potential and I also think that the companies who make them should be able to reap rewards from having done so but not at the expense of wonderful cities like Edinburgh where I live.
It's amazing that the city adaptation to AVs timeline seems surreal, until you remember that it's pretty much the same timeline of how cities where bulldozed to adapt to cars
Yep, that's why I included history in each segment, because otherwise it would seem too unbelievable. All of these things are feasible, if we let them happen.
People don't want to look at timetables waiting for public transport. Just get in the car and go
@@jaz093 this is a minority of people you're talking about
more people are starting to understand that loud cars that are deadly aren't good to have or be around
you don't speak for everyone
@@jaz093 I don't look at timetables, I get to the station and wait for the next train in 5 minutes, wild concept I know
@@dave_riots Plus, loud cars should be at the track, in which, all race tracks should have passenger & cargo railways within them.
Uber couldn't make it in Denmark because the Danish authorities considered it a taxi company. It had to comply with regulations for taxi services, which wasn't profitable with their business model. Hopefully robo-taxis will run into the same hurdles.
”Hopefully they run into so much bureaucracy that they can’t afford to be here”
Turns out regulations is a good thing
Same in Germany
You like overpaying for taxis>
@@mikepotter5718 if self driving cars got their way, it'll be cheap for a bit, it'll kill competition including public transport, and then the prices will be jacked. Look at insulin, or idk Uber?
As a disabled person who uses a power wheelchair for mobility I have a new found fear of AVs not being trained on people shaped like me and I end up getting smoked in a crosswalk. So thats ... fun.
Also a disabled person and the only i take with this video is the concept of taxing driving. Many disabled people drive because there isn’t an accessible alternative and we already aren’t given enough money to live. I don’t think it’s right to be further penalized to just get to doctors appointments etc
I recall reading about AVs having trouble recognising kangaroos when being tested near Canberra. I think the article said the root of the problem was that unlike northern hemisphere animals (I think the car company was from Scandinavia), kangaroos look very different when standing compared to when in motion, and the computer couldn't make the connection between a stationary kangaroo and a moving one. If it has that kind of failure with the wildlife, it'll almost certainly have it with humans in wheelchairs vs humans walking about, too.
@@Roxor128 It was Volvo. Part of the issue was (in addition to what you said) also with their camera based system - the kangaroo's jumps made it difficult to estimate how far away it was iirc.
@@Roxor128as an Australian, hitting a kangaroo tends to end up similarly to a north American hitting a large deer. God forbid the kangaroo is a large male you're hitting a moose like thing.
@@DaniAlexandria This is why we need to tax driving only AFTER we build alternatives, for example, build a high speed regional rail line that stops in every major city along a freeway, and then turn the freeway into a toll road, add a tram line along major arterial roads, and then extend the tolled area to include those as well. Adding tolls/taxes before building transit/pedestrian infra is not at all productive and not what we should be focusing on right now, but it is something we should keep in mind for when driving isn't as necessary as it currently is.
Programmer here, I was working on one of the (many many) ECUs that was supposed to be sitting in the UBER Volvo car, handling a safety critical feature.
Not sure if it made it to the car in the end, because it was crazy how the project was driven.
When you say that they care about profits and not safety, you are 100% correct.
There were no tests on the code at all while the ECU was already supposed to be delivered into testing vehicles and we (not me, because I got out of it) had to work a lot of overtime trying to even have passing tests in place.
The lead constantly requested, and were granted "deviations" for missing tests and critical features being lacking and told us to not report bugs as "bugs" but as "work items" because they could be held liable if we called them "bugs".
The lead was even yelling at team members because of how badly it was going, despite the problem being the lead having an unrealistic schedule and accepting features that were never going to make it in the time they were requesting as well as the lead putting the priority on new features rather than securing tests.
I will state that it was not Volvo or UBER, but a third party they had contracted, but Volvo was the one granting the deviations.
It's really really bad and I'm glad to have made it out from that trashheap.
I work in engineering and its interesting to get some "insider info" like this. Ive worked for education, financial, betting companies so far but never any of these self driving startups. Ive definitely ran into similar project "bugs", it was just never at this scale of being able to affect an actual car on the road.
@@yuriydee I hope, but doubt, that others are different... But after having worked with automotive, cars kinda scare me a bit and the only reason you can ever trust them at all is if they're not self-certified, but certified by third party that you can trust to not take bribes.
This sounds like every software startup in existence, only with deadlier consequences. All the problems of the software industry with all the ramifications of the auto industry.
@@gctypo2838move fast and break things. In this case people.
@@gctypo2838 sadly, that's not even a startup. They were quite experienced in the field and I have no idea how it can turn out that badly with people that experienced...
You can also create a fully automated metro that is 3x faster than any car, 100% electric (more eco friendly) and the technology for it is already mature.
It's alot easier to have a computer follow a signalling system. shrimple.
Can confirm, the fully automated and largely overground Dubai Metro (itself an achievement in the oil-rich car-centric Middle East) flies past traffic during rush hour, for cheaper than paying all the Salik tolls, with trains only like 3 minutes apart… and packed like sardines because they grossly underestimated how much people want to get places quickly rather than privately.
But then you would have to, , _walk!_
@@svr5423 metros are usually used in cities, outside of cities we have normal trains that can go 160kmh and high speed trains that can go 250khm
@@svr5423 I dunno man, driving on the Autobahn during weekdays, it's hard to average more than 100 km/h over long distances. Maybe in some super rural areas you can go faster, but not on the popular routes.
Just a few things to add from a labor perspective:
- AV companies are against right-to-repair and since AV's contain extensive computer/software components, it will become almost impossible for people to repair their own cars. Instead people will have to rely on the AV company/dealerships for repair, of which they will have a monoploy on pricing. This will put many auto repair shops out of buisness simply due to lacking the advanced tools and permission to repair.
- Robotaxis will destroy what is left of the taxi industry. Uber and other gig-work services have destroyed the taxi industry's ability to unionize and demand fair wages. Robotaxis will be the final nail in the coffin. Instead of your fare going to someone trying to make a living and a company, it will 100% go to a company. I'd rather pay a living person than further enrich a massive tech company.
The government is partly to blame for the death of the taxi industry too, they required drivers to go into a lifetime of debt for their stupid medallions. In the 2010s, a taxi medallion cost $750k-$1M, but drivers committed to that because they would make about $80k a year. Or they transferred it to another aspiring cab driver. But now those same medallions have a market value under $150k, and no one wants to become a cab driver anymore because earnings are so low. Because of this, veteran cab drivers are filling for bankruptcy and even committing suicide because they’re trapped. Why would anyone want to pay that much to drive a cab their whole life when they can become an Uber/Lyft driver for hardly anything?
There is no benefit to paying a person to drive you.. since you will still be on your device the entire time. The company will be tracking you and all the other needless crap on your device.. and making as much money from you as possible. The driver of said vehicle.. will be and is being toyed with in every shape and form in reguards to how much they are being paid for a given route even compared to another person going the same route.. at same time of day.
Worst part...
The drivers are worse off.. because not only are they not aware of their surroundings.. to better learn where the HECK they are.. they get so little of what you pay.. they cant even cover the usual upkeep on their vehicle.
Yeah 50€ for a drive to the airport with a driver
@@chandler224 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
So is your phone. What are you doing to protect the phone repair companies?
Guys! I have an idea on how to fix self driving cars! First make them longer and wider (50-60ft by 8-9ft). Then add more doors to each side. Couple a few to each other to create a TRAAIN (Tech Radical Artificial Autonomous Intelligence Newtecheyelonmuskbullshitidk). Finally give them steel wheels and put them onto steel rails or tracks for less rolling resistance. We can then test this new amazing tech in a smaller city like Vancouver, Montreal or Honolulu!
LOL what's next, smaller TRAAINs to take people to the larger ones? I dunno, let's call it a "Tech Radically Asinine Autonomous Machine" (TRAAM) or something.
Or when rails aren't a possibility, have huge trucks with many windows drive people around. Like a "Big Ultimate User Storage" (BUUS).
OMG! I don't why companies aren't hiring this guy this is what you call top talent. He's clearly a genius and that TRAAIN technology looks surreal!!😂
the N in that TRAAIN acronym tho😂🤣
That sounds great. We won't need to build Highspeed rail thanks to this TRAAIN tech. ...wait
@@Jazz-Man1910 mmm. How bout we spell it TRAN. It's more minimalist and fits well on the stock ticker
I love having trains in my garage
This is like the anti-thesis to the "The simple solution to traffic" video from years back. Glad that we've gotten to this point
Yeah I'd be curious to hear CGP Grey's thought on this video.
I still think the solution to traffic is self driving AVs. What we've learned in the last few years as AV tech becomes reality is that solving traffic doesn't come with the benefits we thought would come from solving traffic.
Adam Something did a direct response to that video. It's pretty good.
CGP Grey consistently markets shallow solutions as the best solutions without pondering the underlying reasons. Another example is his original "Death to Pennys" video, where he does not consider inflation or why the penny has been devalued or whether any of that is good or not, just brushes inflation aside and says "What? Pennies aren't worth as much as it takes to make them? Just get rid of them! Easy~!"
Immediate Edit:
ANOTHER EXAMPLE is the plane one where CGP Grey gripes about how passengers load onto a plane and how much faster it could be to get onto the plan if you use strategy X Y and Z, without addressing that even with the slow passenger seating, you still end up sitting there in the plane for a while, while the air crew finishes all diagnostics and preparations.
@@Pannedcakes-90 At least in the case of the US/Canada, if you haven't even come close to "solving" traffics then how could you claim that it doesn't have benefits that you expected.
It really comes down to one extremely simple fact: The problem with car dependent infrastructure is not that the cars are driven by people, it's that people are wholely dependent on cars.
traffic and its issues are a symptom of American suburban design and till that gets a working over there is NOTHING that will "cure" traffic
Right, but a car dependent society where people are driven by AI could dramatically reduce the number of fatalities, of which 90% are caused by human error.
@@drew031127 so would a society that isn't dependent on cars, and on top of that, it would be pleasant to walk or bike around, as well as take the bus or train
@captainroberts6318 that'd be fantastic, and I'd be the first to sign up, but I live in the real world.
@@drew031127 in the real that was possible and still is, not long ago we had walkable cities, car companies need to f off and stop lobbying against better transportation design
You say Utrecht decided to change, but I think it's important to mention that massive (often disruptive) protests played a big part in forcing that decision. People nowadays seem to have forgotten their collective power when they work together ;)
Oh, that's an important point 👍🏼
People have forgotten... everything.
1. Their ability to find their way out of a paperbag made out of swiss cheese with a cop escort.
2. Their ability to think.
3. How to put effort.. into something.
7:15 I was expecting the cone to go in front of the car, but putting it on the hood is vastly more funny.
look at them stupid unicones!
I suspect there's a law in that area against placing traffic cones in the street where it'd block traffic if it's not for a legit reason like for road maintenance, emergency services or suchlike, so they place the traffic cone on the vehicle instead to avoid that particular legal risk.
They're unicorns :D
@@sealeo5772 unicones! 🤣
@@Havlock that is brilliant!
As a disabled person who uses a power wheelchair, thank you so much for mentioning points about people with disabilities. I am someone who is never going to be able to drive a car themselves due to my disability, and it is *so* infuriating to hear the argument that cars everywhere for everyone at all times is needed for people with disabilities. I am disabled! And I cannot use a car without very expensive modifications and someone else driving it! I know they can be quite useful for other people with disabilities, but they are a huge hindrance to me.
I've been living in an urban area of the US for the past few years after living in suburbia for all of my life, and it is *such* a refreshing experience to just be able to... get places. Before, I'd have to rely on my parents to drive me anywhere of interest, which really sucked if they were unavailable and I'd have to miss out on something. But now that I'm in a walkable area, I can just... go! I can take the train, rapid transit rail, even buses if I dare (though I haven't taken one yet due to previous bad bus experiences... trains have proven more reliable and safer so far). I can never go back to how I lived previously.
100% i tell this to people all the time. i am a bike messenger and whenever i say we dont need cars, people say well what about getting to the hospital or whatever. and im like ambulances get stuck in traffic.
i hope the bus situation gets better, that is awful.
I am able to drive and i prefer riding the intercity light rail when I can
@@loimabean there are taxis with ramps to allow wheelchair users to get in. Rather than waiting for the bus or train, Self driving cars will be better for wheelchair users as it can take them to the front door of their destination
@@jaz093 I'm not so sold on self driving cars for wheelchair transit. I ride the bus. Every now and then someone with a wheelchair or mobility aid struggles and needs assistance. There's an actual driver there, often another transit worker, who can help out. Some people have to worry about medical emergencies or chair malfunctions.
The other question is cost. Many disabled people have limited income. Sure, hailing a robotaxi might be worth doing sometimes, but your transportation costs would go up a lot if you took out all mass transit and replaced it with any private driving service.
For a lot of people, the value of 'your door to the front door of destination' is not really such a huge plus. I'm disabled. I take transit. The stop near my house is 2 blocks away. With no transfers I'm 2 blocks from work, and with a transfer, I'm right across the street.
Elon Musk always bashes transit because 'it doesn't come right up to your door or take you right where you're going' but seriously, are 4 maximum blocks a huge inconvenience for me? And a city that's more walkable is better overall. I don't even need transit for some things.
so why are you against self driving cars, which you could own yourself, because you wouldn't have to drive it? It would literally make your life much easier, as you could have your own car. Not to mention they could be customised to accomodate people with disabilities better. I don't understand you at all.
The eliminating pedestrians section was hard to watch because I've seen many stores close down when streets that used to have little traffic went bankrupt after the increase in car traffic and became hostile to pedestrians.
And yet every time you try to replace parking spaces for cars (usually occupied by someone who works nearby rather than customers if the metering and ticketing scheme isn't... aggressive...) with cycle ways, bus stops, and wider footpaths, you get businesses pitching a fit about how they'll loose customers...
in those examples you are removing facilities for people that ARE t here to benefit the people that DO NOT EVEN WANT TO BE there at all and are travelling through
The main reason for businesses vanishing is online commerce though removing the need for locality.
yeah i work as a post deliverer and on my path i have the big stroad of the city i deliver in (south of Dijon) and most businesses on that stroad are dead
@@Asto508 No. I saw this happened many times before online shopping or internet was popular. I am from dial-up internet generation :)
I feel like we tiptoe around the safety questions. I don't like automated cars because I don't like cars, but I think they're clearly safer than modern drivers. People text and drive, drive high/drunk, and people make mistakes too. Like at 9:10 - you say the Tesla caused a pileup, but the cars behind the Tesla did not leave enough room in front of them to allow for a sudden stop. A good driver should always leave enough room to account for a sudden stop. The self driving car made a mistake, but so did the 7 human drivers behind it.
10:23 The problem wasn't just that the program recognized pedestrian 1.2s before impact - the car could have most likely stopped or minimized impact (that Volvo can stop in 120feet from 60mph and pedestrian was recognized in 75feet at 43mph while already braking for the intersection), but instead of braking it initiated _action suppression_ aka did nothing for 1s (didn't even alert the driver it was predicting collision), because Uber feared immediate response would result in too many false positives, so real reaction time was 0.2s, and even then it only initiated plan for _gradual slowdown_ instead of emergency braking, so it was total software failure.
Also that Volvo was equipped with manufacturer's collision warning and braking systems, but Uber disabled it for easier development and only reenabled it after this crash, but remember kids those corporations will make us safer, just not all of you will survive...
Fr, it should have immediately started slowing down more while it was thinking to give it more time to stop or at least so it impacted at a far lower rate of speed
I work in software engineering. This is like the most looked-down-upon practice except now it also hurts people: hiding the flaws in your shitty code with more shitty code.
Make us safer? More like making their income and reputation safer
"Yes, but it's safer than the worst human driver". So that's OK then.
"We will make you safer**"
*Those of you that survive
*If you pay us an increasingly expensive fee
6:05 nice. The French have taught me that a protest isn't a protest until a car is burning.
Or a cattle truck with sheep inside it.
French Farmers. They eat horses, you know.
You can also Shit in a river or on a politicians doorstep but fire makes for a good front page story 😂
@20chocsaday Many countries eat horses, used to in the US (it's not illegal either). I'd rather be a sheep in France than in the US.
@@arnodobler1096 100%
@@20chocsaday So...because some farmers eat horses, cars burning isn't a protest? This doesn't connect.
Toronto is currently ripping out the bike lanes citing that only 1% of people cycle. You should make a video on that! We need awareness!
I wish there were bike lanes where I live. But they don't make sense in the vast majority of places. We have to invest in what provides the most value to people and unused bike lanes isn't it.
@@username7763 Again, extremely short-sighted and misinformed argument. Bike lanes are essential for urban areas, benefiting not just cyclists but drivers and pedestrians alike by reducing overall congestion. Here’s why:
Reduced Traffic: Bike lanes encourage more people to bike, taking cars off the road and easing traffic. Fewer cars mean smoother flow for everyone.
Increased Safety: Dedicated lanes make roads safer by separating bikes from cars, reducing the risk of accidents and protecting pedestrians as well.
Efficient Land Use: Bike lanes allow more people to move through a city in less space compared to cars, making city infrastructure work more efficiently.
Cleaner Environment: Fewer cars lead to lower emissions, contributing to better air quality and a healthier urban environment.
Boost to Local Businesses: Cyclists are more likely to stop and shop locally, supporting neighborhood businesses and increasing economic activity.
Cities that prioritize bike lanes create safer, cleaner, and more efficient spaces for everyone, while reducing the pressure on streets and contributing to a higher quality of urban life. Removing them is a step backward for city infrastructure.
@@username7763 I live in Riyadh KSA (Probably the biggest city in the Arab peninsula) and I share your negative sentiment, but at the end of the day, thousands of people are dying from car accidents every year maybe month where I live, so this isn't just a matter of "my commute to university is awful" (which it is) this is also a life or death decision that can genuinely save thousands of lives, not to mention that especially for my country any saved petrol is a benefit to the nation as it is our only current reliable economic source, so while it might be doom and gloom you should still know that a change is doable and even necessary. I hope your city gets better 😁
@@Ryan-yj4sd if the number of people actually using them is apparently so small assigning the space to that specific group is a terrible use of resources..why not have another lane on the other side just for horses while were at it?
@@johntowers1213 The claim that only 1% of Torontonians cycle is based on outdated data and does not reflect current trends. This statistic originates from a 2011 Statistics Canada survey, which reported that 1.2% of Canadians used bicycles as their primary mode of commuting. However, more recent studies indicate a significant increase in cycling within Toronto.
A 2019 City of Toronto survey revealed that 44% of residents identified as utilitarian cyclists, meaning they use bicycles for purposes such as commuting to work, school, shopping, or visiting friends.
Additionally, 70% of Toronto residents reported cycling for either recreational or utilitarian reasons. These figures demonstrate a substantial rise in cycling activity compared to earlier years.
Furthermore, data from the 2016 census showed that in certain Toronto neighborhoods, cycling mode share reached as high as 34%.
This indicates that in some areas, a significant portion of the population relies on bicycles for their daily transportation needs.
Despite this growth, Premier Doug Ford has cited the outdated 1% statistic to justify the removal of bike lanes, arguing that they contribute to traffic congestion. However, numerous studies have shown that well-designed bike lanes can alleviate congestion by providing alternative transportation options, thereby reducing the number of cars on the road. By focusing on outdated data, the argument overlooks the current and increasing demand for cycling infrastructure in Toronto.
In summary, the 1% cycling statistic is outdated and does not accurately represent the current state of cycling in Toronto. Recent data shows a significant increase in cycling activity, underscoring the importance of maintaining and expanding bike lanes to accommodate this growing trend and to promote a more sustainable and efficient urban transportation system
With self-driving cars, the average number of people in a car will drop below 1.
OMG, don’t tell Elon!
He might remove the seats as well.
12:31 this clip is terrifying. that car was about to run the red light and hit that pedestrian, but another car ran the green light and t-boned it instead, saving the pedestrian's life
“ran the green light”
Looks like multiple pedestrians, too. And is that a baby stroller?!
I just about had a heart attack. Thanks for timestamping it.
omg i hadnt noticed !!! the car driver unwillingly saved a mother and two childs.
t-bone makes me think t-rex. dinosaurs in steel hull.
I'm Canadian (and studying engineering!), and I've been OBSESSED with your videos recently. Been watching them during every GO train commute. Glad to be early!
I'm glad you're not in a two thousand pound SUV. Alone. That is how many people drive into Toronto, ON., while complaining about bike lanes and pedestrians.
Hopefully you can help make some good changes in the future!
@@Alsatiagent-zu1rx There has never been a 2000 lb SUV. An SUV weighs at least double that! They are also less capable in efficiency and cargo capacity than station wagons that are going extinct.
Have you also been completely depressed by how blind the rest of the cohort seems to be to any real issue or their solutions? Be it privacy, the actual productive use of ML, transportation or sustainability.
The most baffling example i remember is in an innovation focused class, when a team of 10 genuinly spent all semester glazing hyperloop... As if it was fixing some real problems. When every single one of their talking points for every single presentation they made was just better solved with trains. And trains don't even have the absurd technology cost and energy of operation cost...
@@bongmuon I just can't take both of you serious, as you are using D&D units like lb....
25:57 did..... did Ford make a marketing video showing that less car space, less cars, and more bike paths allowed the remaining cars to move faster? Which is the complete opposite of what Ford would want anyway?
yeah it is gaslighting, like BMW makinf that ad where the man uses a bike on his day to day and his bmw only sometimes, whhen in reality if he has a car he'll probably use that most days
Typical propaganda. Remember: propaganda is falsehoods uttered to support a position. All propaganda is false, but not all falsehoods are propaganda.
@@hypernewlapse no way, I'm that bmw owner and I purchased it for play. Although probably most in the US don't share that mentality, but that bmw ad was showing a future I'd greatly prefer
They know that their true vision wouldn’t appeal, so they marketed a vision that clearly isn’t coming.
There's this infamous Saturn ad from 2003 which basically depicts all car drivers as people who are running on the road instead. To this day it remains one of my favorite ads, because I have never seen such a fantastic demonstration of how absurdly space inefficient cars are. It's called "Sheet Metal".
I’m in Europe, and there aren’t any self-drive cars here, yet, so there is no opportunity to ‘cone’ one. I feel deprived.
Utrecht vs fake London is the most imporatnt part here in this video
After watching that segment I decided that's going to be my new response to all "but American cities are too new, theyre not old like those European cities! We were built for cars!"
I am currently living in Utrecht for a 4-month Study Abroad term and I could not have made a better choice. I am dreading my return to Edmonton in 40 days...
@@reilandeubank How do you put this pedestrian environment into places built for having the opposite? How do run transit in areas that have car-centric land use effectively?
@QuarioQuario54321 if you paid attention to the clip, most cities were built before car dependency and were destroyed after the fact (phoenix being an exception)
So, we can do what Utrecht did and instead of making excuses, make change
The huge benefit of Utrecht is that it is extremely central to train connections for most of the Netherlands. You can basically fall out of a train directly into the shopping centre.
One effect that I always notice when I am in Utrecht is the large amount of unique, privately owned shops. The internet may kill large-chain retail but a unique one-only type of shop can still exist exactly because they sell stuff you can't as easily find online. And such places need foot traffic.
The point is that car infrastructure does NOT benefit local retail but a train station does.
@@DutchLabrat and I still will only go shopping for I have a car
@@svr5423 ??? Traffic jams? I was there last weekend. Walked from the train station to several shops. Never saw a jam :)
You see, when you are driving in traffic you ARE the traffic, and when you get in a jam you ARE the jam. Stop complaining about something you created yourself.
Asia is living proof of that, shops and stores only open up where there is foot traffic, and where is the foot traffic? The public transport hubs
I occasionally go to Utrecht by tram or train to buy comic books and the only place I encounter cars is the crossing of the Catharijnesingel and the Mariaplaats streets. It’s still annoying since it’s a traffic light that allows both cars and others from the same side to move, causing cars that turn to have to stop for cyclists and pedestrians, who also don’t feel safe anymore because of that (though it can be skipped by walking though Hoog-Catharijne)
Internet commerce does kill off a lot of the specialty shops, because an internet store can offer very unique items that only a small number of people want, and it can do it at a volume where the local shops can't compete with its economies of scale.
There’s an interesting point made by Rory Sutherland on reversing the attitude changes behaviour perspective. Change the behaviour, and one’s attitude changes instead. I was a petrol head until I bought an e bike. I used to cycle many years ago but e bikes fundamentally changed the experience. That brilliant video you made a few years back “I’m not a cyclist” nailed it in that time. Now, I’m engaged in conversations with colleagues and anyone about my e bike. It’s a conversation starter rather than a source of rebuke. Our employer now has a salary sacrifice policy where an e bike is purchased through work and is paid from our gross salary saving 20-40% of tax. This ends the argument at the cost of an e bike over a car. Make a video in real London. The place is transitioning in real time now that the middle classes ride their kids to school, sharing the cycle lanes with workies and professionals. Great video Jason. Thanks.
Since i watch videos here im suprised how many of my drives are to support my petrolhead hobby, like driving to my rented workshop 30km from home or getting spare parts from 1.5hrs of driving away. If i wasnt a petrolhead and not living on a farm in the middle of nowhere i wouldnt need a car at all. germany btw
You... You still have cool cars, right?
@@satsumagt5284 i do, yes. A Barkas B1000 rare 3-axle tow truck version, a Trabant Saloon which will get a double HP engine, a Trabant Estate thats becoming a Camping Trailer, a CityEl 1990s Electric Threewheeler, a Opel Astra F 2.0 GSi (my daily) and a Scooter i wanna get rid of or swap for a more classic 50cc motorcycle. Used to have a much bigger collection too. Im living on the land so ill always need a car, and the small towns around me are too small for Trams and anything more frequent than hourly Busses and a Train
Demography! The world is getting older. 60 year olds will soon be the majority and they do not want to ride bikes of any sort. They want to feel, warm, dry and safe.
@@SmileyEmoji42 my 84-year old mom and my 86-year-old uncle love their e-bikes, and appreciate the combination of mobility and getting a mild workout.
Can't believe im actually seeing "people not robots" in a protest before 2080
Being American means I'm constantly struggling to decide whether I should keep watching cities barely make any transit/walkability progress or just move abroad.
"How DARE you take the easy way out, instead of joining a local pro-transit lobby for a decade, that might not even pan out! Think about the poors who can't just move!" -- A Moralizing Subset of Urbanists
Good, cheap, public transit will never happen here. It's going to get worse, and worse, and worse.
I moved from San Diego to Bologna, one year later, would never look back!
@@garryferrington811 You say that... but there are absolutely cities that are managing to improve.
Of course, there are also cities that are actively getting worse, so...
I wish moving abroad wasn't so complicated and expensive
"Cars should go around cities, not through them." I don't know if I can explain how happy I have been to find my tribe online here. :)
@@AnZsDad1973 As a person with disabled family members I'm really scared that we will be left behind and outside - again.
And how will businesses be resupplied? By a long conga line of people passing items one by one?
@@victorokeahialam8925 am I right in assuming that you didn't watch the video, or at least you didn't pay close attention? When talking about Utrecht, Jason mentioned that while many of the streets are closed to cars delivery vehicles are still allowed.
This movement isn't about eliminating all vehicles; it's about redesigning cities to prioritize PEOPLE over TRAFFIC (ie, cars and trucks). Yes, we need delivery vehicles to get products to stores so we can purchase them, but we can use alternative forms of transportation to get us to those stores. This includes trains, trams, buses, and the like (mass transit), as well as bikes, scooters, and walking (active transport). Reducing vehicle traffic will make active transport much more appealing as it would actually be ENJOYABLE to use it.
@@susanne5803 car-centrism leaves everyone behind. We need mixed use walkable neighborhoods with varied transportation that suits different needs
I live in the UK and my town decided to have traffic go round my town more and turn most of the town into pedestrian only and lord knows it's so much nicer going shopping I feel like it actually increased spending it's much less of a hassle now but America is just to anti pedestrian
I work for General Motors' self-driving division and (despite the potential repercussions) have shared this within our organization. Here's hoping to change things from the inside.
Good luck. Would love a followup to know the reaction and thoughts, if possible
@@tyiffpeijc8702 me, too.
Good luck. You've got your work cut out for you.
Here's hoping you won't be fired
@@Stroopwafe1 *next in line for the next layouts
One thing that always seems gets overlooked as well is that for the futuristic "utopia" of a network of self driving cars to work ALL cars on the road have to be self driving. Anyone who can't afford a self driving car and just has a human-driven car, or anyone who wants to take their vintage (human-driven) car out for a drive puts a spanner in the works.
WE have to develop normal driving first so it should be very easy for self driving cars to switch back into that mode when they detect a non networked car.
There are solutions to every problem but capitalism doesn't incentivize implementing those solutions if they cost more than they make - everything has to be a "return on investment" in our society/economy heh
The funniest thing is, when you automatize cars, and increase speeds, decrease stops, and block off the streets from all but autonomous cars...
if you squint, you can see it as a continuous stream of travellers, getting on, and getting off at predetermined locations... you know, kinda like a train 🤣
America will invest in anything other than public transport 😭
why need public transport if everybody has a car? 🤔
@Hansalicious why drive a car if you've got public transportation?
or healthcare
@@Hansalicious kids exist, elderly exist, disabled exist. Lung diseases exist. Tire wear is problematic for the people near highways.
@@Hansalicious Very wasteful Clogs the roads up and everything is slow. A bus takes up the space of maybe two cars and carries up to 60 times as many people. It also means that there is far less CO2 emission per passenger mile. Public transport is best in densely populated areas.
You somehow make a 54 minute video feel like a 20 minute one with your quick pacing! I just wish I could get my family to watch your vids rather than having to paraphrase them at gatherings when the topic of pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit comes up
you took english class in school right? try that old tactic of making jot notes as the video plays and then you can easily sum it up without missing a point.
doing this removes the repetetive notion that "america is car centric and the car companies are behind it". guy really likes to mention this and probably did so 30+ times this video.
from my experience, it's actually better if you tell them in ur own words
Good to see you here! I have the same problem, I can't seem to put these things in my own words in a way that would be nearly as convincing for family.
What is this? A crossover episode?
(If you read it in Mr. Peanutbutter's voice you are correct and awesome)
it’s amazing that this channel exists and seems like no one in the right position is watching those videos and says „this guy is completely right - lets show that to the world“ it makes me insane! your videos are pure gold and such a value added
It's funny that corporations will say that disabled people will benefit from self-driving cars, not just because car dependency created the problem in the first place, but because self-driving wheelchairs have got to be a million times easier of a problem to solve than self-driving cars.
Amazing the sudden concern for disabled people and the poor anytime restricting cars is suggested. Amazing how quickly it evaporates when spending money on public transport is suggested.
I’d love to hear one of these companies explain how their self driving car is going to help someone with mobility issues get from the car to the door or take their shopping inside
@@donrobertson4940 I think it's both for propaganda purposes, but also sometimes just ignorance. Many people have little contact with anyone disabled. From the windshield, they only see that there are parking spots for disabled people, so they take a very car centric view of disability. They don't take a bus, and see the way many people actually get around since accessible vehicles are expensive. They don't know anyone who has a visual disability who has to cross a street. Or people with medical problems where, if they now can only cross a street on one of those ridiculous pedestrian bridges there's no way they can anymore.
Like all of the money poured into self driving cars couldn't made more subway stations wheelchair accessible.
"Tech companies proudly say that they 'move fast and break things' and maybe that broken thing will be your spine under a robotaxi, but that's a risk they're willing to take" was I the only one that heard that line in the voice of Cave Johnson?
Farquaad from Shrek for me.
Shrek reference, this time.
Cave Johnson is the quintisential Tech CEO.
I've worked for many tech companies and that attitude is terrible even if less safety-critical situations. Its amazing that software and technology works at all with some of the things I've seen. Keep "tech companies" away, we need engineering companies.
@@username7763 Elon Musk apparently hates bright colors, so he discourages the usual yellow and orange used for safety. Definitely keep the tech people away.
Many tech companies (also worked for some) are offering products that just barely work. That might not be horrible if you're talking a video game that you can patch later, but awful for anything where people can get killed.
There are more reliable software and companies, but they are usually more niche and industry specific.
I moved from Minsk, Belarus to Vilnius, Lithuania a couple years ago, and the thing I still mourn to this day is the metro. These days I'm forced to travel at least 3 hours a day by bus on the same stinky, loud, busy roads: to work, uni, and then back home - I live out in the sticks. With a metro, I used to be able to get across the city in 15 minutes.
I genuinely can't fathom how painful it must be to not know this luxury, and take pride in your car dependency as a nation-defining trait.
А еще в Европе нет ванн, где можно полежать и почитать книгу каким-нибудь зимним вечером :) серьезно, в России я никогда не чувствовал себя так холодно, как в Италии, как бы парадоксально это ни звучало
The population of Minsk is >2M, Vilnius is slightly over >0.5M. Building metro is not always the most feasible solution, it depends on various factors, such as cost of construction, population density, type of soil, etc. Metro is very expensive to build and maintain; if it's not enough people to use it, the train interval would become longer, which will further divert people from using it, making problem worse. Improperly implemented, it can turn into a huge tax burdain. Ilya Varlamov had some good posts on this topic in the past, search it. There are good and cheaper alternatives to metro in cities that aren't big enough for it, such as high-speed tram (tram lines that are isolated from city car traffic).
Problem getting around Vilnius is not the absense of metro, but the current transportation system that isn't great. There are ways to impove it without spending billions of euros to build a metro system that might not solve problems.
It doesn't hurt if you never know about it
The fact that Germany has so much pride in their automobile industry really gets me. There's fantastic engineering in some of these companies, I wish it were employed to a more society-friendly end.
It is difficult to build the underground in a city that's relatively flat and near a river. Ground water level is a constant concern. Sometimes it's just not worth the engineering effort required.
one thing i almost never hear anyone talk about, why would you want cars to be pretty much silent, it's way more dangerous for pedestrians
This video is great. It starts out stressful and dystopian, then ends with a calm "there are actual solutions, here they are, they are easy and better". Your presentation never ceases to impress me.
Except that, if you've been watching the channel for years, you realize that the solutions have been there all along and people in North America are still dead set against them. And then you watch elections and you understand that people aren't interested in solutions, period. They are interested in feeling powerful and in control--of an oversized pickup truck from which they can yell out insults to anyone who dares to walk, cycle, or use public transit.
The basic premise that self-driving cars will reduce traffic seems suspect to me on a fundamental level: if X number of people commute every day to a location at a certain time, then at least X number of people will _still_ be commuting at that same time, in vehicles about the same size, and therefore filing up the roads just as much. Even if these cars are able to communicate and autonomously coordinate with each other, there's not enough enhancement available in that to make up for the physics that is space-inefficient objects occupying a limited space. And that's before what you note in the vid where even more traffic will be placed on the road network thereby taking up even more space. The only 'advantage' might be that we can now read a book as we move at a crawl -- which we can already do on a train (while getting there faster with less impact). Thanks for the video! And for that historical comparison between Utrecht and (fake) London ON -- that's just WILD.
Yes, but originally the argument was, that even though X number of people will *still* be commuting at that same time, X would only be about 30% of everybody commuting. So in this case we would only need maybe peak 40% of vehicles. This seemed reasonable to me when I first heard about this argument from Tony Seba five years ago.
However, as I know see how self-driving cars seem to get implemented and that this is an even worse version of Uber, I'm now absolutely convinced, that it will not lead to most people not owning a car, but to people even wanting another car for their children and elderly, who today are not able to drive on their own! Jason's argument is absolutely convincing that instead of one trip trying to do three destinations in sequence there would be three trips in parallel instead.
@@patrickhanft Aye, AV "car sharing" in that regard that might reduce the total number of vehicles needed for ownership/transportation, but from a traffic perspective (and therefore the speed of travel/commuting) it wouldn't improve things as the same volumes would be on the roads traveling in the same direction at the same times. That said, demand/surge pricing could be implemented by the AV companies and therefore could push people to spread out their arrival times, and that would have the potential make a big difference. Just as would arrival time based congestion pricing to enter downtown. :)
@@KannikCat In isolation this is true but there is a argument to be made that AV car sharing can lead to a modality shift. Let's say we have someone who for their work commute can and want's to take the train. They own a car for certain other trips. Then taking the train can be relatively expansive and this person could logically decide to take the car (they have standing around anyway) to work. This person might consider getting rid of their car if "car sharing" is an "good" option. They will then start taking the train for their daily commute and the shared car/taxi for other trips.
On the other hand, "better"car sharing can also lead people to use shared cars instead of public transport. In the end it is a complex dynamic and it is difficult to predict what impact self-driving cars will have.
@@KannikCat The purpose is to sell more cars. They will push for more vehicles, clog up the roads and gridlock entire cities.
if I'm not mistaken the idea is basically that big traffic jams are often caused by people slowly accelerating one after another like one of those "infinity cogs" (the ones where the last cog won't turn until the heat death of the universe. That principle). And self-driving cars technically could solve that by accelerating like a hive-mind. But then you got the arguably better alternative of..... public infrastructure and making sure that that works properly and safely within urban areas
That AV only intersection with razor wire topped fencing truly is dystopian. And the way things are going I can easily imagine seeing it within my lifetime becoming reality.
Bizarrely, the people look less obese in Utrecht. What a strange coincidence!
Seeing that before/after of the highway being turned back into a canal in Utrecht actually gave me chills. This is what renderite artists working for their corporate overlords have promised car development will help do to cities for decades and here it is in action, actually happening, by doing the exact opposite.
As a Brooklyn born person now living in the burbs (a city that’s literally one big strode and side roads), it deeply saddens me we’re starting to see self driving cars here in America before improving our public transportation. The bus here stops by once an hour and is very limited, that’s about it for it. Every time I go to Tokyo I feel so alive with all the pathing available and people to travel along side with. A city with good infrastructure is a different life than one here. Hope to move out soon
I have little to no desire ever visiting the US because of things like this. There's a museum in New York and like the space coast maybe. But I just don't like driving longer distances. I just took the train home this weekend to borrow a car off of my folks and of course to visit them, 3h drive time back to my student apartment. By 1 ½ h I was feeling restless and wanted it to end already.
The bus goes every 15 minutes outside the home I was raised in, with plenty of connections to the rest of the city. And there's like 50k people in the entire municipality. I didn't even need to drive for my first commute, there was a train every hour, just walk 2 km on the other end on good pedestrian lanes in the 7k municipality.
Maybe we could have more buses if we had self-driving buses. They could also run 24/7 that way.
@@namlem_ Why would nuses being self driving or not affect at all, if you think the the budget for buses and public transport is being drained by the salaries of bus drivers you are delusional
I might be moving there--I know I wanna leave the US, and I have a friend in Tokyo who's like my other half.
But who wants to wait for public transport looking at timetables? Have the car waiting on your driveway. Just get in and go any time of the day
Nailed it with "cheaper taxis" then monopoly pricing with 30% EPS growth kicks in and 30% year over year price hikes
I've always told people that the belief of a robotaxi being non-trivially cheaper than a human taxi is not likely. First off, Uber's cut of the fare - the part that doesn't even go to the driver - isn't going to get any smaller, just because there's no driver. Then, you add to the the cost of actually operating the vehicle (including the deadheading), which, unlike the gig economy model, the company actually has to now pay themselves, rather than outsource to someone else. Then, you add the cost of all the extra hardware and licensing fees for the software to implement the actual self-driving tech, plus the cost of humans to clean the cars, inspect the sensors, remotely operate stuck vehicles, tow trucks to rescue broken vehicles, and probably a whole bunch of other things I'm not thinking of.
I would not at all be shocked if, at the end of a day, operating a robotaxi turns out to cost just as much as paying a few bucks to a gig economy worker to drive the car manually.
If that's really your worry then the solution already exists - Just vote against it.
It was surreal watching uber prices change in realtime… I lived in LA from 2013-2018 and lemme just say… when I first got there? $10-15 to go from USC to Hollywood on Saturday night, but by the time I left in 2018? That same ride would’ve been at least $30.
But then they won't be everywhere, right? If they're still as expensive as taxis, there's no way many people will transport their three kids in individual self-driving taxis every morning.
That's ultimately all it's about.
Wealthy people wanted segregated private transit that they didn't have to share with a filthy pleb driver so they invented automated taxis.
Btw, the biggest source of microplastics in nature is car tires wearing down. So that will also just increase...
ohh.. i didnt even know or consider that.
The biggest source of microplastics is car tires? That sounds like BS to me. Do you have any actual stats or studies to back that up?
An associate of mine who worked on Google's self driving car initiative told me that they begged many European cities to allow them to train self driving cars, including Amsterdam, Berlin, Paris, Copenhagen, and Zurich. The answers were not just "no" but the equivalent of a most polite and emphatic "F U".
For real? If that really was how the countries responded i couldn’t be happier.
I’m im the US rn and honestly can’t wait to be back in Germany.
@@flo8517 the funny thing is, federal and most states in germany suffer incredible car-centric governments, but _every_ city figured out, that self driving cars would only bring people in cars who today use busses, trams, etc. And that would crash every cities roads, hinder emergency service, hinder every basic service every city needs. The cities want LESS cars.
Asking the bavarian government could have worked, maybe. Asking cities themselves? Lol, no.
Remember when Google used to try to not be evil?
@@Aaron.Thomas back in 2005?
Nice!
I believe @NotJustBikes underestimates Europe's willingness and ability to regulate and stand up to big (US-)corporations. In particular I don't think the "US-trained cars on EU roads" will be a major issue. If the cars are not safe on EU roads then they are not allowed here, period. (Also the fact that this could give a leg up to European companies that are also working on self-driving cars doesn't hurt.)
Any American parent who has waited for pickup at their kid's school should realize what a bad idea it is to have your car queue to pick you up.
Fr. The carline is hell. Just walk
...better hope the kid gets in the right car too
My son and I run the gauntlet of SUVs badly parked in the no stopping zone outside his school every morning. On our bikes. Everyone blames the other people's SUVs for making the road so dangerous they have to use their SUVs - which, of course, they 'need'.
Then they complain about kids not following road rules.
The amount of car lines that extend into high traffic roads...... Like nobody ever thought this could be an issue huh
The AIM video is scary beyond even the "It would suck for a pedestrian to try to walk across this" reasoning. One of the things that isn't thought about is nature. Deer don't give a shit about the laws of man. Or moose. Or a flock of wild turkeys. Or an ice storm. One miscalculation by one vehicle that isn't being calculated by any others results in hundreds of autonomous cars piling up before the ones that can actually stop will be able to. And good luck getting to ground zero by rescue crews with a four way traffic jam with cars in an algorithmic deadlock unable to make a hole for fire and rescue...
Yeah I really can’t imagine this actually being implemented in real life, or at least not with that many lanes. There’s just too much that can go wrong.
I think we need to start adjusting our expectations on technological progress.
We have been very spoiled for booming technological progress for 100+ years but it’s actually slowing down not speeding up. Historically this bump in technological progress is actually incredibly short. It stands to reason that it can’t continue on an upward trajectory forever and instead we might be reaching the limits of what’s even possible.
History shows that in contrast to the idea of a straight line of progress, we have very little if any progress up until the 1,600s and before that it was incredible slow and it would even regress for new civilizations to have to rediscover old concepts.
All that is to say if we stop achieving any more technological progress (ei self driving cars improving “inevitably”) it shouldn’t come as a shock. It would just be man kind returning to the status quo of being stagnant. Historians would look back and chuckle at the idea that we were basing projections and expectations on a tiny anomaly in our grand history.
Car-less drivers? Is that safe? Has it been sufficiently tested? What if the walker gets stuck and there isn't a car to take over so they get to their destination? What if they walk or bike into something?
Yeah actually carless drivers have this one weird trick: they can walk.
is this meant to be sarcasm against the idiotic idea of driverless, car-centric cities, or attempting to mock the criticism of it cause I genuinely can't tell
@@AnymMusic A car-less driver is a person on foot. A care-less driver is someone who texts and drives.
one time when my brother was 10 he wasn't looking where he was going and walked directly into a telephone pole. 3 stitches above the eye. horrifying. thank you for finally drawing attention to this pressing issue. car-less drivers are. not. safe!!
@@bogwife7942 I once texted and drove as a “carless driver”. Almost hit my face on a street sign post, but damn the steering felt so precise and agile when I dodged it!
Self-Driving cars are a solution to a problem that only exists because of cars.
I was at a "Q+A" from a car company trying to promote self driving. When asked, they had to admit that the cars are bad at detecting kids and wheelchair-users, because they are to small.
When I asked why exactly we need this instead of better public transit, they huffed and puffed and didn't answer the question.
My "so you'd rather kill kids and disabled people than actually make society better" got me thrown out.
They'd rather have to throw you out than answer that, yes, they do in fact prioritise profit over the lives of people.
honestly, you're iconic
Well, when the goal is to make money by selling sell self driving cars, with any benefit or detriment to society being an irrelivant (except in so far as it is beneficial or detrimental to the associated propaganda campaign) side effect, that's not really a surprising outcome.
Everything that exists is a solution to a problem that only exists because a solution to a different problem is imperfect.
@@Darca1n always has been
I am dutch, and when I went to Canada I realized the shopping experience is completely different. When me and some girlfriend go shopping in the Netherlands you walks through the city centre along site tiny boutiques, its great, but in Canada the atmosphere is different, in the city centre are big roads, and you don't like walking there. You can go to these big shopping malls but most of those also have a busy atmosphere.
When shopping in the Netherlands in the city centre the atmosphere is made with more greenery and no cars. I love city centers where cars are not allowed!
I live in Canada and went to vacation in Europe not that long ago, it was amazing how accessible a lot of things were for people to just walk to.
That shopping/neighbourhood experience is exactly why small retail businesses in brick and mortar stores are dying. Outside of small towns it is miserable to walk down a main street.
One of your best videos - I love how all your previous content meshed together. It also had a dystopian feel, reminiscent of Yuval Noah Harari's books.
5:30 Cruze managment should be in jail for trying to hide this.
Yes, it is a bit crude, I'll admit, but it is the base vi*lence necessary for change!
[Deep notes playing in the background]
USA: 335 millions inhabitants = 42900 fatalities / year
European union: 447 milions inhabitants = 20400 fatalities / year
And reminder : road fatality is decreasing in Europe (especially in Eastern Europe which is one of the leading factor in the road fatality figure) whereas it is increasing in the US
Both areas have massive range
Who would've guessed that traffic cones were the ancient magical wards to be wielded against the technodystopian future
until they reprogram those things to stop at nothing, then its 💣💣🔥🔥time
@@hypernewlapse or maybe you could carry inflatable ramps and just send the cars to meet jesus cartoon style
@@Gabelbusch extremely funny option
@@hypernewlapse nah thats where you get the car sized bicycle and some wheel clamps.
@@davidty2006oooh what would happen if you booted a car? Would it drive and just destroy itself? What if we just chain the wheel to some static bit?
I love how the marketing video of Ford shows adding more public transportation, bike lanes and narrowing roads will make everything better while trying to sell you cars :D
Jeeze.. I feel like screaming. It's so frustrating. We have to get corporations out of social planning. Period.
Install more protected bike-lanes. Install more busses. Install more trains!
They are all cheap, good for health, good for environment, and SAFE.
Try explaining that to the dying American auto industry
ppl will scream socialism, and therefor bad.
@@ttaibe People must be re-educated, then. Those who believe capitalism is god will come to find, some sooner, some later, that capitalism is little more than a cancer.
Even money, to some extent, was a bad invention. We created it as a way to cope with things like how much grain to trade for a goat, but now, instead of the acquisition of resources, the acquisition of money itself has allowed fascism to rear its ugly head once again.
I'm not claiming to have all the answers. I just know that what capitalism has evolved into definitely is not the answer humanity needs (much less the rest of life on the planet).
No you need to leash the corpos, look at Japan. Every single public transport in Japan is a corpo. Yet it has the best public transit on the planet.
I want more trains 😢
I'm living in switzerland, and sadly a shopping center in my city wanted to rebuild itself to renovate, make more business spaces, living spaces near the center and promote walk-in customers by building more dedicated bus stops. However the project has ben on a stall for many years now due to a court ruling that the project description does not include enough spaces for cars...sometimes current laws can be a pain in the ass, even if companies do want to build....
Yeah, we need to kill minimum parking requirements. I find it odd that they managed to be adopted in a city in Switzerland considering the extent of your transit networks.
@@heinzmustermann8416 here in Wellington you can find plenty of people complaining about cycle lanes and how they are killing the CBD since you can't park anymore. There's okay public transport (good by nz standards maybe Europeans wouldn't think it's that good idk). I admit being encumbered on a bus isn't great there's definitely a limit to how much you can carry and it does take a lot longer since it stops more and the route isn't as direct but these people just can get out of car brain. Wellington is probably the least car-dependent city in nz.
I guess they hate cyclists and just don't use public transit.
@@timothystamm3200 In Germany minimum parking requirements can be violated ! You just pay a fee to the city that then "claims" to use the money to make parking possible itself.....^^
Wich the city doesn't. But it's still cheaper than building parkingplaces for your employees.
I think It would be better if the city would take care of the transport of the enmployees of the company and would charge the company with that. This way no one suffers.
@svr5423 If you have enough transit and cycling options, people don't need to drive, buddy. Get out of here posting such carbrained nonsense on this channel and this video no less. Essential my ass. The human race lasted for millenia without parking requirements, and transit and cycling is superior to the damn car. Let's learn from our mistakes, not insist on repeating them.
@@timothystamm3200 Well despite what most people think about our transit system, the truth is most people still do have a car, especially in the smaller cities like the one I live in. I get where they were coming from, but the court was still highly criticised because it was not in a position to judge wheather more parking is needed or not, because they were all lawyers and not city planners that decided this. All the city planners on this project agreed that the project encompassed enough spaces.
I live in the Midwest
Snow mixed with self driving cars will absolutely kill people
Some tech bro somewhere: New innovations in technology will solve that!
@@methos4866I mean, it will eventually
@@methos4866 to them that would be just zip-tying a flamethrower or two on the front bumper, and they would definitely choose those ‘Boring’ company flamethrowers, because Elon.
"will" umm I doubt it, considering the amount of data it will be trained on it will be the safest car on the road, since it has no ego problems it won't go faster than it knows it can handle
Snow mixed with human driven cars already absolutely kill people.
I was on the fence about self driving cars but your arguments convinced me that this will only make cities worse.
I like how at a certain point this video stopped being a facade and started just explaining how we are already barelling towards a cyberpunk/blade runner esque dystopian future, with nothing we can do to stop it from the powers that be who wilfully ignore the deadly effects of those settings on the people who lived there.
As someone that deals with pretty intense motion sickness in cars and busses I always shake my head when people argue in favor of cars when it comes to disability. Sure, *some* people are best accommodated by cars, but in my case that's rolling the dice on whether or not I have a miserable rest of my day.
I'm very lucky to live in the Netherlands because being stuck with car centric infrastructure would absolutely wreck my life.
I also get moition sickness which I avoid by using a bicycle n the UK. Everything became more sensitive after a second bout of Covid.
Just realized: if I take a ride in a car right now, I can inform the driver about my motion sickness, so they can take it into account. If I get sick in an autonomous car? I'm out of luck!
@@krob9145 I've also gotten more sensitive to it again in recent years. I genuinely thought I had largely grown out of it but nope, it's back with a vengeance!
@@breanna_bee I've found it's worse with most taxis since they're time sensitve and can spend time swerving here and there trying to rat run and failing because of road changes. Telling them doesn't help so I avoid taxis as much as possible. Telling family and friends doesn't work with me either. One continues to drive worse than a taxi driver and laughes. You would have thought he learnt from the time I ended up projectile vomiting over everyone in the car one time and that was before I got over sensitive. I turn down all offers to give me a ride somewhere and get there on my own steam by bike or train.
@@krob9145 Even though I don't get motion sickness, when I'm in a car I still want to be comfortable. Why would anyone driving purposefully want to swerve and accelerate/brake so hard for no reason... Even from a purely selfish point of view, I want to be gentle on my car to reduce wear and tear anyways. People are idiots.
They should make self-driving busses. And make them _really_ long. And put them on rails so they don't need a shitty AI to operate them. And instead of an app, you just get on one at a station.
and have atleast 1 dude onboard to make sure everything is fine and dandy.
@@davidty2006 and as a bonus they are electric
Could we also make it magnetically levitate?
A Pater-Noster Train, always running. From A to B to C .... and back. Full Circle. With free energy, you're not wasting anything and you can start thinking like that...
Also, trains are much simpler to operate than cars, and we've had autonomous trains since the 90s. They basically just have 2 controls, acceleration and breaks.
We already have a self driving infrastructure. Public transport. You can work whilst travelling to work
i feel like self-driving cars is just a fundamental misunderstanding about what the *problem* even is? its not that drivers are not good enough at driving (though sometimes, that IS the problem as well), but that there are simply TOO MANY CARS. and just putting more cars on the roads, just this time without drivers, is just not a solution to anything!
In theory, self-driving cars can increase road capacities by a whole lot. Putting more cars on the roads means people are getting more utility out of them, that is a good thing. We want public infrastructure used. Coordinated self-driving cars can re-route to reduce congestion, they can all start and stop at the same time instead of the stop-and-go traffic we have now. But in-practice we are very far away from this. That is the problem. While in theory they are great, in practice they are terrible. And I don't think they will improve much in our lifetimes at least.
@@svr5423 At least in the USA we have massive amounts of unused land. There is plenty of space to spread out but people clump into cities. Part of this makes sense, we get shared city services and infrastructure. But it also causes a lot of problems. We need cities, but enough of the super dense, being surrounded by millions of people cities. Humans didn't evolve for urban life.
@@svr5423 There are not too many cars because there are too many people, there are too many cars because cars have insane subsidies to prop up big companies. The same number of people with a tenth of the cars would be better for the people, for climate change, for everything.
Pretending cars isn't the problem and instead people need to be removed shows you're a corporate stooge.
@@svr5423we could begin by reducing vehicle size 😊
@@username7763 People have been living in cities far longer than they've been driving tho. Look at cities built before the 1900s, they are far denser than cities built after because they were built for people. It's convenient for people to live in dense cities so they can quickly get to where they want/need to be. Being overly spread out makes cities far more expensive to maintain and live in. The larger square footage requires more work to maintain and makes them annoying to navigate.
Of course you don't want to get too dense, people need privacy & cramming too many people in one place is dangerous. Still, it's probably better for cities to be too dense than too spread out.
PS: It's silly to make a statement about "Humans didn't evolve for...". 1) Evolution don't work that way. Evolution has no direction or goal beyond "survive", and even then it only aims for "good enough". 2) We're using magic lightning-boxes to send symbols across the world...where the hell do you see that in nature?
0:42 You know what would make our roads actually safer?
Get rid of all the cars (self-driving or not) and replace them with a propper network of public transport,
prefferably on rails, as well as bicylces.
Sounds great until you realise you then have to build a train line to every hamlet and house, what we need is both good public transport and cars where they are best
Cars should definitely still exist, just not as the primary mode of transport.
banning SUVs and restricting pickup trucks should be the first step towards that
@@Rhys-x4e Take one look at USA's train network in the 1940s. Look at the train schedule too.
@@Rhys-x4e or people can just walk/cycle to a nearby station? tf are you on about
I know a guy who works at Yandex's self-driving car division, and he gave a bit of a different perspective from across the pond. Unlike the cars in the US, autonomous cars in Russia are not allowed to break any traffic laws whatsoever, and that creates its own problems, because it turns out that human drivers routinely break the laws and expect others to do the same. As a result, a perfectly lawful self-driving car has to expect outside behaviours different from what it's programmed to do, and at the same time preferrably not get into situations where it will have to do something that drivers around it don't expect it to. For example, one of the laws is that cars are not allowed on sidewalks when a pedestrian is on it. Most drivers let the pedestrian cross their lane and then go, but autonomous cars are not allowed to do that, they have to wait from the time the first leg enters the crossing and only go when the last leg leaves, which leads to stunlocks from irregular streams of pedestrians and dangerous erroneous emergency braking events. It's a problem that's really hard to solve without kicking every driver off the road and replacing everyone with robots.
Humans can think, so when a human driver encounters something they didn't encounter when learning how to drive, there's a good chance they will be able to get everyone to safety.
Self-driving cars cannot think for themselves, so they can only draw from what they've been trained on. Any time they encounter something outside of what they're used to, they will react unpredictably or fail to react at all until it's far too late.
We have one traffic regulation that states "you are not allowed to stop general flow of traffic even if this will violate other traffic regulations, as long as you can do it safely".
For a human it is completly natural to cross a double line and be on the wrong side of the road for 30m if a truck is blocking your lane to off-load cars and will be there for the next 20 minutes ...
Another issue - there are ~200 countries on the planet and every country has its own traffic regulations.
Most of them are similar enough to a point that you can drive almost anywhere BUT to release an actual self-driving car that won't get tickets because of traffic regulation violations would be super challanging for any 1 country. The programming for self-driving woull need country specific routines and updates or simply GPS-lock to individual countries (e.g. Tesla in the US) and never release abroad.
Russia already has issues getting any butter into their grocery stores... and they bother with self-driving cars ?! Talk about skewed economic priorities.
@@ZemplinTemplar Russia is not the Soviet Union where everything was state-sponsored, Yandex is a private company and can do what they want. And it's not like they started yesterday anyway. They were considered one of world's leaders in self-driving before they got excluded from all the discussions due to you know what.
@@TheLaXandro Yandex is basically the Google of Russia iirc yeah?
Pedestrian bridges are a nightmare for me due to a fear of heights. And I’m definitely not alone with this! Not even close…
8:35 and that exactly is why self-driving cars (and other software-driven products) are not a technology problem but a regulatory one. The moment a tech company will be fully liable for the damage that their products cause, they have a real monetary incentive to make their products better. A Waymo car running a redlight is not an upsi daisy but a serious product defect that (potentially) caused harm and the company that build the product must be fined for it.
Make them carry $50 million of liability insurance PER VEHICLE.
@@vamoscruceros Pretty sure self driving cars still need insurance to drive on the road..right? so isn't the regulatory problem already being dealt with via the insurance industry?
@@vamoscrucerosGood luck making Elon do anything.
If these cars are not liable for their mistakes, then they have zero incentive to avoid making those mistakes. Them being on the road is terrifying
@@craigcampbell3921 cars that have to be insured to drive on the road have a massive financial incentive to not kill or hurt people.. if autonomous cars were as bad as you predict then no one would be able to run them on the roads due to the impossibly high insurance premiums...
Autonomous cars will almost certainly be as good as if not better than the shaved apes that currently bonce them around the roads today..
I’m making my dissertation thesis on the impact of mobility systems in the identity of people living in cities and your video basically (with other intended purpose) summarize the issues flawlessly! Great content!
That sounds so interesting! Would this be available to read after it is finished?
You may want to add in energy aspects on which everything depends. The more energy which is available, the more transport is fuelled to a dehumanising degree. Nothing moves without energy and almost all human problems are reduced by using less energy in total. Not just transportation. Money is just embodied energy IOUs.
When it comes to speed limit, I think people do the mistake of using "Self driving car" as some kind of magic spell that removes all problems. The stopping distance increases with the square of the speed of the vehicle, no matter how the car is driven. This means that the distance needed between cars will increase by the square of the speed of the cars. You will then have the situation that the throughput of cars is higher on lower speeds.
Also, a car, no matter who drives it, will have parts that break down. Breaks get worn, pumps need to be replaced, hydraulic lines can leak, and so on for all parts of the car. Combine this with a strong lobby organization and a constant drive for higher profits, and you'll see badly maintained cars swooshing around super fast, because they're self driving and therefor safe. Then there will be surprising 100 car pileups when a car inevitably has some failure in an important part.
There is a simple solution though: Connect the cars together and have them on a specially designed road that keeps the separate cars in place if one of them would fail. Hopefully we can see more of these types of vehicles in the future!
Stopping distance is already a problem with all vehicles carrying one person, its a problem on bikes too after all. Would you be opposed to self driving bikes? If not, then clearly your problem is not with self driving cars, but cars as a whole.
As to maintenance causing huge crashes, the aviation industry is a good example of how this can easily be solved by heavy regulation and transparency.
Trains also crash, they just crash far less often. If we could get self driving cars to similar crash rates and reduce the space taken up in cities by roads and parking lots due to increases in efficiency, would this not hit all the goals you are hoping for with trains?
what is with all these “AV’s will cause 100 car pile up” claims? AV’s will avoid pileups better than any human driver ever would.
@@kel1770 yup the problem is the cars
@@finn7530 [Citation needed]
@@finn7530 Murphy's law: _"If it CAN fail, it WILL fail."_
You forgot to mention one crucial element in the Enshittification of roadways: The ads that you will have to endure during your subscription ride, and the prices the ad companies have to cough up to outbid each other in the third phase of Enshittification.
24:00 I work at a liquor store, and the number of people I see making DoorDash deliveries for things like a single bottle of vodka, a single bottle of wine, a half-bottle of cognac, or *4 fucking single shots of rum* is staggering. It is absolutely the case that this shit is inducing demand for trivial purchases that enrich company shareholders.
Not to mention, they take advantage of immigrants and recently laid-off workers to fill their coffers by being their 'contractors'. It's sickening. And we're about to give them more power over our roads and lives.
@@seanmurphree4716 I work customer service for liquor store delivery and I keep seeing people who live maybe a 3 minute walk from the store ordering delivery. I saw one yesterday who lived upstairs from the store, and they were just buying a single bottle of wine as well. Idk if they just don't realise how close the store is or what, but I can't imagine paying a delivery fee more than the value of the item to save myself a 5 minute round trip.
I think the gig economy should be abolished, and any company that wants things delivered should simply do it the old school way, either through a delivery firm with employees or by hiring some themselves.
To be fair, if there's anything I'm okay with people outsourcing to delivery services for, it's alcohol. I'd much much rather have them use a delivery driver than drive drunk themselves.
Oh and idk about your specific business, but where I'm at I know some drivers will do a multi stop pickup for booze when all the stuff can't be found at a single location
At least, I think thats what I did on drizzly before, it's been a while
@subjekt5577 in a walkable transit oriented city being drunk is a lot less of a risk. Hell if you follow normal rules for not overconsuming, like the no more than two drinks at dinner rule, then you probably won't even notice as you walk and ride transit back to home.
@@subjekt5577 Ours are specifically booze-only orders. Lots of complaints about people only ordering one bottle, them having to drive 5 miles to deliver it, and only getting paid $3.
You mentioned that AVs might increase traffic by cruising on the streets to avoid having to park, but you didn't even mention another factor: traffic direction depends on the time of day. You have plenty of people going downtown in the morning and back to the suburbs in the evening. So even if robotaxis park somewhere outside of town, in the morning, instead of congestion going downtown, you will have congestion going outbound as well, with lots of empty AVs looking to pick up the second round of passengers. And then congestion as all the empty AVs head out to their suburban parking spots. And congestion in the afternoon as all the empty AVs head back downtown to pick up their passengers. And on and on.
What can you do about Self-Driving Cars in your city? Well first you're going to want a glass bottle, any glass bottle will do, then take a handkerchief and... Sorry my lawyer has advised me to shut up now.
Uhhh... Let's maybe just stick to traffic cones for now.
@@NotJustBikeswhat a good idea!
@@NotJustBikes yea
Would it be possible to commit insurance fraud with them? I’m saying we jump in front of one moving slowly and pretend all our bones broke
@@bababababababa6124 they have cameras everywhere, so no.
I would love to see a world where cars are things people want, not things people need.
there was an anime about this problem, though their solution is to have a task force of drivers driving old sports cars armed with guns to stop robocars lol. it was 2000, okay?
EDIT: the is anime is éX-Driver . I would also like to recommend "éX-Driver on Autonomous Vehicles" a video by isyourguy which talks about the anime and how it didn't realize the amount of potential of its premise.
@@beat-man5167 title?
commenting to find out
@@ScottagramReplying to give you a notif
@@beat-man5167 Slight tangent but man YT search sucks, searching "ex driver on autonomous vehicle" just gives pages upon pages of actual autonomous vehicle videos.
Living in Canada really showed me for the first time how ridiculous strip malls are. The parking areas are huge, you can fit a whole town in a larger strip mall and the best thing is they are mostly empty as you can see in 49:45
It is actually getting worse with most sold cars now being SUVs that just get bigger and bigger and drivers not realizing how big and heavy their new cars are. This trend to larger and heavier cars negates any positive effects from EVs and creates more demand and pollution. I really think that city centres should be designed for inviting pedestrian spaces first that drive the economy rather than busy noisy streets, where no one wants to sit on the sidewalk or outside of shops.
We are in dystopia. It's not coming. It's here. And getting worse every day.
Parking minimums are another problem that definitely needs addressing. Most of them are way too big, even if everybody drove cars. I can't believe how absurdly big some lots are.
Winnipeg Canada lots of MALL parking lots are being taken over by satellite buildings now reducing the amount of parking and increasing the amount of retail space
some malls are now at the point that during peak times there is NO parking and cars are in gridlock circling looking for parking and NOT finding any
@@jasonriddell They probably need to rethink transportation to the mall.
I was instructed a long time ago by an SUV owner that the safest approach to driving was to have as much steel as possible between you and the road. So much for "SMART" cars.
Ah, now I get the hate versus the 15 minute city. No cars needed.
I had a free 30-day trial of FSD just a few months ago before selling my 2021 Tesla Y. It was mildly beneficial in absolutely perfect conditions, like a wide open highway with minimal traffic, broad daylight, and well-marked lanes. It farked up a lot in other conditions, and often overreacted to nearby traffic, stomping the brakes and giving us whiplash due to "threats" that any human driver would have ignored. It misinterpreted service road speed limits as interstate speed limits and slowed to 55 in the middle of 80mph traffic, yet not _once_ did it recognize a yellow off-ramp speed limit sign at all.. literally every time I drove to work or home, I had to manually tell it to take the ramps at 45 instead of 80. Anything less than perfectly marked lanes, any low light or precipitation, caused it to become erratic and unpredictable. Potholes? No avoidance or braking whatsoever, which is a real problem with 21" rims and rubberband tires.
It was like babysitting a brand-new beginner driver that made the same mistakes all the time and never learned.
I'm sure the tech will _eventually_ get better than human drivers, but it's clearly going to take much longer than expected, and it seems like the proponents are all trying to push past this long, awkward learning stage by just denying that it's a thing at all.
It’s really impressive just how thorough this video is at covering all of the different issues with self driving cars. I just hope that this video remains a warning for what type of future we shouldn’t be working towards, and not a documentary of where we went wrong
Probably the most problematic thing to self driving cars to me is, it is not possible to communicate with them as another traffic user. So much little things are solved on the street by looking a driver in the eyes and understanding each other. If I want to cross a street I can see if a driver sees me or not, that's not possible with an AV. And there are lot if situations where you want to look someone in the eyes in traffic.
In our country we have traffic signs which have the text: seek eye contact when you … turn onto a side street, or leave a construction site, or use an exit etc. (text in Dutch of course), the sign is more and more used at dangerous situations when motor vehicle drivers use exits or side streets and therefore have to cross the bicycle lane or cycle path. This seeking eye contact will be difficult if there is no one behind the wheel.
That might actually get fixed with Connected Autonomous vehicles....the vehicles will be "talking" to each other so perhaps a human messaging system will be incorporated. You might be able to shout at another driver from the confort of your vehicle 😄.
From the video, my solution is going to be having a traffic cone with me. I am sure by the time it gets this bad there will be companies selling highly portable ones...
@@RealConstructor "don't go til you can see the whites of their eyes..."
@@MazeFrameor/and chain the wheel to the exhaust.
In 2013/2014, I asked someone at the Dept of Energy working on helping AV technology get off the ground how much they expected the technology would increase demand for car travel, and if that would offset any environmental benefits they were expecting. They said they had not thought about it before. I asked if anyone at DOE was working on that question and they said they can’t “predict or control what people do”. As a social scientist, that ignorance felt hazardous to society and borderline willful-I know DOE is now starting to think about the human side of the equation, which is great, I just wish it happened sooner.
Not as of Jan. 20th.
"Cant predict what people do" is probably the most island-brain statement ever. There is multiple sciences looking into this, there is people designing emergency egress doors, buttons, handles, escape routes...
Humanity is doomed
Lol, i got an ad of a giant RAM in the beginning of the video.
I'm going to pray that EU will force corporations to make those cars safer before allowing them to streets. And that our countries don't let them to public roads
oh they will.. i mean in germany self driving is only allowed on the highway.. and thats after some tests..
so.. that self driving cars coming on the roads.. will take time in Europe...
In Europa are the Roads more complicated then in the US.. they are not so big etc. so.. of curse it will take way longer
Besides praying, send this video to every MEP that you think might be helpful.
The EU is behind in technology and funding anyway. That might be a good thing if it can slow down in a way to avoid catastrophic mistakes. But it might also be in a bad way where they only slow it down but don't stop it entirely so that it still happens but continuously behind everyone else (a slow moving horror if you will).
I am concerned about battery cars (EVs). They don’t catch fire that often, but when they do,they cause a lot of damage and if burning inside or next to buildings the extreme heat can compromise the structure of the building.
The car industry was scared (almost to death) by car fires and a lot of efforts was made to avoid fires - at any cost.
One thing electric vehicles have taught me is just how loud tires moving on even *new* asphalt can be.
I bought a used Chevy Volt this year (a plug-in hybrid). And I quickly realized I couldn't tell if the engine was running or not, I had to be driving slowly on a freshly paved road to hear the engine come on. Yeah I can hear it when it really revs up on the highway, but when the engine isn't doing a ton of work it's just not as loud as the tires on the pavement.
At least electric vehicles used to be quiet at lower speeds, but now regulations require them to blast sound at lower speeds for safety and the result is that small ICE vehicles are quieter than electric.
Low rolling resistance tires, are they louder or quieter?
@@Nicholas-f5not much difference, just that wider tire is more noticeable
Above 30 km/h (20 m/h) tires are the main cause of noise instead of the engine
The part of your video where you say "move fast and break things" and how the companies are okay with the thing being broken being people's spines, that needs to be turned into an ad and appear all over the internet and screens in major cities. Honestly, why isn't that already a thing? Such an ad could become viral.
Now it all makes sense why stupid bugs exists in software, why some cars are poorly designed (from an engineering standpoint)... All makes sense
So, we may be faced with hordes of empty cars, endlessly circling the neighborhood so there is always one nearby. Or taking all the parking spots.
We need to institute limits on the numbers available, and to bring back Cab Stands.
There's an interesting problem that someone brought up recently that stuck with me. Imagine a teenager whose first car is self-driving. They, for the most part, never have to drive at all except in situations where the car can't drive itself. Snowy, icy weather, heavy fog, confusing parking lots, etc. HOWEVER, since the teen has barely any actual experience in driving in mundane conditions, the times where they are forced to actually drive they will be terribly out of practice, leading to reduced performance in these critical moments.
I'm a software engineer and I think the same is true for programmers who rely to heavily on AI to do their work. They'll just end up sucking worse than normal in situations the AI can't handle.
asking out of curiosity, what situations in software programming would AI be generally incapable of?
I would assume the level 5 AV has ZERO controls so the ONLY option at that point is to find other modes to finish there trip
for me the level 3 and 4 systems are what scare me
Yes, this is a great point and is a problem of any system with a human-AI interface. A lot of research has been done with this in the air traffic control space. They found that of course through incorporating AI you can greatly increase the number of flights that a single air traffic controller can oversee, but the problems arrive once the system goes down... now the controller is met with far too many flights for a human to handle on their own so they're screwed! And so are the people on the planes...
To me that goes back to one of my main arguments against using AI for anything.
If something is worth doing, but you would rather use AI to do it rather than learn how. You don't really want to do it. It's just taking an extremely lazy and unproductive way out
@@user-armas anything dealing with multiple programs which interract with eachother
this could be anything from detecting player input and telling another program on the server to run something
to working with frameworks/libraries which help abstract large ammounts of code into single functions and give greater QoL to developers
or even seperating code into seperate programs for readability and organisation
This problem will be settled in Europe about fifteen minutes after the first driverless car in Paris tries to negotiate the Arc de Triomphe. I hope I'm there to see it.
Jaques Tati Playtime 😂
tech companies: "some of you may die. bu thats a risk I am willing to take"
It is an acceptable risk because so many of us are dying today. Especially Americans. And maybe THAT is a problem that could be worked on in more ways than one.
To be fair, "On average, 1 pedestrian dies from a car crash every 88 minutes in the U.S." and I doubt very much that all of these accidents involve a self-driving vehicle
Question is, are these companies willing to invest resources to make their autopilots actually safer than a typical human driver. Or even equally safe
@@andrewch4066 Some of them can and will. Some of those again will be successful. The systems that are out in traffic today are significantly safer than humans, if you count systems where people take over when the computer gets confused. In the USA, this is a very low bar, since traffic is basically a continuous massacre if you measure by body count.
@@DerAnanasKing countless human drivers make that same statement every single day.
@@geirmyrvagnes8718 and EVs clearly aren’t the solution