How Self-Driving Cars will Destroy Cities (and what to do about it)

I honestly hope that they do not succeed in the end. Ubiquitous self driving cars will spell the end of what's left of walkable areas in North America and bring about (in time) similar destruction of the urban fabric to Europe and elsewhere. I'm not very articulate and English is my second language but this video below is really worth watching before we all swallow as an axiom the idea that autonomous cars are going to be a good thing: ▶ this video

I highly recommend watching the notjustbike video on autonomous vehicles. It outlines a disturbingly plausible path to a dystopia simply by following the lobbying incentives to logical conclusions. This feels like step 0. I'd strongly suggest that if this is coming to somewhere near you, you object, tell your city no, protest, etc. Link to the start of where he starts outlining a path to dystopia (though the first half of the video is informative too) ▶ this video

Don't fall on the trap of self-driving cars will make our lives better. They won't. Building cities for people first is what will improve our lives. Watch: How Self-Driving Cars will Destroy Cities (and what to do about it) ▶ this video

Well worth to watch 'Not Just Bikes' new video 'How Self-Driving Cars will Destroy Cities (and what to do about it)': ▶ this video

It's long, but well worth an hour of your time. He even states in the comments that he set out two years ago to make a positive video about AVs: 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. ▶ this video The future he illustrates seems mostly plausible, except that it depends on all of the technology functioning flawlessly. I have a hard time believing that streets full of high-speed AVs functioning in perfect synchrony is likely. However, that doesn't change my general agreement with the conclusions he draws in that video and the rest of his channel.

This urbanist youtuber did a really in-depth video on what the future could look like (both good and ugly effects) if self-driving cars become enough of a success to affect the way we build infrastructure ▶ this video

> Imagine the conversation New York legislators could have had if every robotaxi ride generated a cryptographically signed, tamper-evident record of the vehicle's behavior — independently verifiable by any regulator, auditor, or safety agency. This is putting the cart before the horse. The problem with autonomous vehicles is that there's no standardized third party test suite to validate and certify ahead of time and periodically that the vehicles are capable of behaving correctly in all road conditions even with their sensors degraded as will happen over time. This kind of validation should be done by the state or a neutral third party like UL in the US before a single vehicle is allowed on public roads. Without it they're just unleashing multi-ton weapons on the streets with no guarantee they'll perform adequately. The problems with this were evident in SF when the blackout happened and the Waymos clogged up the roadways. If that happens during a real emergency and blocks the roadways it could result in thousands of deaths. Autonomous vehicles are a bad idea anyway for the reasons in this video[1]. 1. ▶ this video

I recently watched Not Just Bikes' video on the disastrous future side effects of self-driving cars[0]. Of course it made me think about the massive PR push that made us think they were around the corner, but also about the manufactured consent for these technologies in the first place. Right now this kind of discussion is hitting the mainstream with the 'clanker'[1] backlash. I think it's really obvious to a lot of people that the AI push is not organic and is not based around consumer needs, and this manipulation is making people genuinely angry[2] (ok jreg is a performance artist, but just because something is performative doesn't mean it's not real). [0]: ▶ this video [1]: link [2]: link

A pessimistic look at self driving cars: ▶ this video If we end up where the video presents, humans don't deserve technology of any kind.

No pedestrian crossings. No bike lanes. No escape from the noise of thousands of tires going at high speed. No escape from the air pollution of eroding tires and brakes. A vision of that future from a skeptic: ▶ this video

For people who are interested in the question whether self-driving cars are the solution to commuting: an video essay of why self-driving cars are worse for a city than public transport: ▶ this video

If that interests you, maybe the question "how did it get to be like this" will too. This video is pushing a point down your throat. If you can ignore that at the end it compares Canada's New London to Holland’s Utrecht: ▶ this video Turns out the choice between "Middle America Suburbia" path and the other you describe really is a choice. Some have very deliberately chose one and some equally deliberately have chosen the other. Like you I've nearly always lived in the "American Suburbia" style. Like you I literally didn't realise (in fact I would have scoffed at the idea) there were other choices. That was despite the fact I was taught by migrant European teachers, who, when I look back, made it very plain what they thought of the "American Suburbia" style of living. Us calmly accepting the extra overheads of longer roads, consequent travel times, power transmission, transport fuel costs, freight and so on just blew them away. It blew me away too once I understood it. Then, again like you, I got live in one of these high density neighbourhoods for a very short while, and experienced the level of social cohesion and the "big village" feel of it. Now I think "wtf? I've been had".