What Cars May Come

I imagine a not-so-distant future in which rush hour, traffic lights, collisions, and road rage are only memories. With entire cities full of cars connected to and controlled by a central computer, almost all traffic issues would be eliminated. Essentially we would all be chauffeured around in private cars without a worry in the world. As much as the internet holds the promise of freedom and equality, I think the same possibility exists with the mass automation of transportation.

Most traffic problems are a result of unexpected or non-conforming actions - when a person goes against the expectations of those around them. Driving slowly on the highway, too fast on crowded streets, surprise lane changes or turns, unexpected stops or slowing, racing, pulling over (or not) for emergency vehicles, and more. Think about every time you've slammed on the brakes, and how many of those times were "some idiot doing stupid, dangerous things." Swerving to avoid a collision, slowing down to evaluate another driver's actions, or just feeling uncertain about what to do. What percentage of the time have you been reacting to another driver? Inversely, it can be me who cuts someone off, doesn't signal, speeds to make it to work on time, or any number of offenses because I'm in a rush or distracted. Car crashes will cease as distracted and impaired driving, missed exits, miscalculated hazards (i.e. wet/icy roads or bald tires), and errors in judgement ("I can make that light") are relics of the past. No longer do I have to worry about what stupid thing I have to deal with next because there will be no more human error.

Traffic jams would go away because there would be no hesitation or need to negotiate between individual drivers. Each car would move to its destination, along with all the others, without the near-misses, anxious adjusting, or jockeying that all result in braking and disruption. Every car would go to its destination with certainty, as there would be no checking of maps or second-guessing of routes. In order to keep traffic moving at its most optimal flow, the computer would divert traffic before a problem, allow emergency vehicles to pass unimpeded, and provide passengers with an immediate replacement in the event of a car's failure. Merging and highway/freeway on-ramps will also be smooth, doing away with the need for metering lights.

Instead of worrying, bicyclists could move about the roads with the confidence that every car was aware of them and would respect bike zones. Intersections and crossings could be handled easily. The computer adjusts (slows without stopping) traffic flow in one direction to allow time for crossing foot and vehicular traffic and then alternates directions. This would allow for traffic to move continuously, even in busy downtown areas. No more circling the block looking for parking. When I reach my destination, I just step out and the car is ready for the next person.

Another benefit would be the freeing of police to concentrate on substantial crimes instead of speeding or other trivial traffic issues. In addition, the impact of police in traffic (i.e. drivers slowing or focusing on a cop car) would be alleviated.

Never worry about the next oil change or if there is enough fuel in the tank, as that would all be taken care of by technicians who maintain the fleet. Similarly, cleaning, repairs, and upgrades. Alternatively, the motor vehicle department would serve different functions. Licenses would still be needed, but for other reasons. Registration, titles, and other areas dealing with ownership and transfers would be eliminated.

Another major change would be road signs. No longer would there be any reason for anyone to watch for danger or search for addresses. Information could be shown on the screen (windshield) of the car, using a heads-up display. Alternatively, the display could show entertainment, ads, or artistic accompaniment, or could be completely off and act as a plain window. Since I will not need to keep my eyes on the road to navigate and steer, I'm free to simply enjoy the view. All billboards and business signs could be replaced with greenery.

The infrastructure for all this would be immense, which has positive and negative aspects. First, the design, construction, and maintenance requires a sizable workforce. Great for employment in those industries, although many of the existing jobs and personnel could be transitioned to the new system with training and modification. Also, taxi services are subsumed into this new system. Private auto insurance, car modification, or 'personalizing' will be eliminated when all vehicles are public goods. Auto mechanics become public employees, as they are needed to keep the roads rolling. Gas stations, parking garages, and car washes are also public goods and can be used for varying purposes.

The central idea to all this is simple enough: relieving people of the burden of automobiles. This is done by accentuating all the positive and reducing the negative impacts. It is not all post-modern, futuristic wonderment. All these points need to be worked out, security and finances addressed, and implementation is always over-budget and behind schedule. Many aspects of making the transition will take a fair amount of negotiation. However, the bright outcome is enticing enough to overcome such resistance and definitely warrants the effort.

Capitalism as Favoritism

What I would like to point out this time is a basic and prominent flaw with this system. Simply put: the ability of those with money to do what those without cannot. When money represents the ability to make desirable things happen, then those who have little or no money are left out. This is not just about being able to afford a sumptuous dinner of natural, contaminant-free foods, although that is an example. This applies to everything from transportation and housing to hair and body care. One obvious example that many can relate to is speeding tickets. I use these because they are things which most citizens agree are unfair. What I mean by this is that these tickets represent an informal tax, a fee to circumvent inconvenient laws (I mentioned this in my post "Legal Fiction" of 19Mar05). There could be valid reasons behind speed limits, certainly, but the only real check on dangerous behaviour and which leads to actual safety is self-regulation. Psychologists might refer to this as an internal rather than external locus of control, but it means that an individual is in charge of herself. Getting back to this discussion: when one breaks a law and the penalty is financial in nature, that is unfair. There is no motivation for actual, long-term changes in the offending behaviour, there is only the fear of being caught and having to pay more money. This means that those who have little money are more effected and those with more money do not experience the fear or supposed change in behaviour which the fine is supposed to instill. This also holds for being imprisoned, since it has monetary repercussions, as well. There is the immediate effect of not working while in prison, but the further difficulty of having a criminal record which will limit job prospects in the future. Even more unfair, since most people with money are able to get a great attorney, they get to keep themselves out of prison or pay a fine (can I simply call it an inconvenience fee yet?) in lieu of jail time.  What does this mean to you?  Are you entitled, in the dominant class, and without worry or care for this situation?  Do you feel this is the way things ought to be?  While you may consider yourself above the law, you may wish to reconsider that position.  The only way that laws have any power is by consent and when they are imposed on people there is only one outcome.  I don't mean to expand on that now, as it is a topic for another post.

The Cult and Culture of Cars

In so many ways, the automobile has taken over our lives, even beyond when we are in one. This can be seen not only in the way we design cities and states with roads and parking for cars in mind, but also in the way we think of where we live; in relation to friends and work, for example. Really the basic function of the automobile is to make travel a less onerous task. Yet it has become an extension of our selves, another symbol and, in turn, another way to judge others. It has, in such a short amount of time, come to where it seems all our cultural personalities and institutions can be expressed in terms of cars and traffic. This extends to art and entertainment certainly, but also language, societal expectations, and self esteem. The very idea of not using or having a car has become ludicrous or foolish, although I am glad to say there are people trying to counter that. We don't just move further away from our family and the places we were born, we use cars to escape from the world. By getting in and turning up the stereo, by taking a long and destination-less drive, or just by going really fast, we are trying to get away from the rest of humanity that causes us so much upset. We complain about all the other drivers...please examine the hypocrisy of that thought. We all get out on the road together and think that none of the other drivers should be there.

Thank you for examining that; it is, of course, just a symptom of the selfishness of capitalism and competition so prevalent in culture today. However, these tie so closely with traffic and the auto as to be indistinguishable. Yet we should ask ourselves the basic questions: "How does this help us?", "Is this really good for us?", and "Can we do better?" The competitive approach to driving is what inspired this post, because it seems rather than improving the way we get where we are going, cars are just another way to "beat" each other. There are "sports events" entirely devoted to and consisting of cars and trucks and things that go vroom. In everyday life there are those who try all sorts of ways to "win" in traffic. The person who dodges and weaves around others, another who shoots off to the next traffic light, and especially those who drive as though no one else is on the road. I don't believe this attitude or circumstance is intentional, that we set out to create it. However, we can and need to overcome what has happened, not just to be safer on the road, but to instigate change in other parts of our lives, which suffer from the same basic problem.

I recently heard about a book that seems to fit with this subject, which I am excited to read, called Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) by Tom Vanderbilt.

Legal Fiction

No law ever freed anyone, only enslaved them. There is no way to pass legislation allowing people to do things-they already have all their abilities, their "natural rights" as they have been called. All a law can do is tell people what they are not allowed to do. That's why in the Constitution of the U.S. it says, "Congress shall make no law..." at the beginning of the enumeration of rights; that's why, "those rights not numbered herein are reserved to the individual citizens." Every time a law is passed, it adds to the list one more thing that people are not allowed to do. The argument is that new laws cover ground not foreseen by those who originally composed the laws, that times have changed and they are needed to protect us against new problems. However, passing a law to prevent something every time an abuse is perceived leads to abuse. Take "speeding", for example: no doubt a two-ton object hurtling out of control through a heavily populated area is dangerous, but does it require a law to say it shouldn't happen? No, nor will that law stop it from occurring-only proper training and a conscientious operator can avoid it. So, one may ask, what makes more sense than a law? Well, the answer is just what I said before: the only thing that can actually stop a collision or prevent a vehicle going out of control is the operator. The person "behind the wheel" is solely and totally responsible for what happens, so our best hope of preventing all these deaths and maimings each year is to ensure those operators are well-trained, conscientious, and as fully-prepared as possible. No law can do that, only adequate training and caring (or, if that word scares you, you can say 'aware') individuals can. We especially don't need a law that allows municipalities to collect unapproved, extra 'taxes' through catching "speeding motorists" and fining them for 'breaking a law'. No matter how adamantly the government denies this charge, that is what these "fines" are. Any time one pays a fine, it provides operating expenses for that governing body, which is exactly what taxes are for. We should not be subjected to taxes in disguise, just as taxing us twice on the same thing has historically been a provocation to action. If a government requires more money to accomplish those things we need it to do, then let it come out and state that. Hiding behind the ridiculous argument that these "fines" are a deterrent, and are only meant to stop these "dangerous individuals" is an insult. They do not accomplish this stated goal, people who drive in an unsafe manner do so because they have a basic disregard for others and themselves and making them pay a little money will not change their minds about it. We need to recognize these fallacies for what they are and act to stop them from starting and/or spreading, to realize our rights, understand what really protects us, get together with others who feel similarly, and move to protect ourselves from further oppression and end those practices that currently hold us down.