Maelochs

If a certain poster is so dead set against vehicles, let him stop buying or using anything delivered by a motor vehicle.

Otherwise ... isn't he promoting the use of motor vehicles?

tandempower

I see your point, but shared autonomous vehicles 1) would make it possible for more people to LCF and thus mean less cars on the road in total, and 2) I've been reading about how Ford is reducing its non-truck sales, so it wouldn't surprise me if people show up here promoting trucks in the forum, i.e. because they are hiring people to market trucks.

tandempower

Sounds like you're signing up to be the delivery truck driver when everyone else is LCFing.

Maelochs

Sounds like he is an essential part of the team, doing what Someone has to do so Everyone can do the stuff they Want to do.

And since they are car-pooling ... aren't they ALL car-lite?

Delivery drivers ... Delivered just about everything you have ever bought. Did you think that washing machine Walked from the factory to the store, and then to your dwelling or the laundromat? The soap? Your food? Your solar array?

Sounds to me like the guy and his friends are using the least possible vehicle/miles or vehicle/hours they can to do what they want to do. Sorry for the people who have problems with that.

Mobile 155

More people will live car free, "LCF" by ordering things delivered to them by a car? Is that what you are saying? If 200 million people drive today having 200 million cars delivering, moving, picking up and delivering will make them car free?

Maelochs

I got sucked into responding to TP ... you'd think i would have learned ... (headsmack, facepalm)

tandempower

What's with all the pride-defense? Yes, driving is a machine-operator job that can be more or less productive/efficient depending on how you organize the logistics. The problem we have in the automotive-waste culture is that instead of minimizing the number of motor-vehicles and miles driven, we try to maximize the amount of money transacted, no matter how much land and other resources are wasted. We end up with sprawl and LCF becomes difficult and time consuming because we have built things so far apart and settled into an economic culture where it's common to drive around between all these distant destinations all the time.

You never know based on what people say. People like to present themselves as being ideal. When you question them, they get defensive. They are defending their pride. They don't want to think they're less than perfect and consider how they could do better. Some of us like thinking about how things, including ourselves, can improve but others are just in a competition for pride. I get really tired of listening to people defend their own and others' pride, their pride of automotive culture, etc. I am just looking for ways to reduce per capita footprint so there's less pavement, less machines, less noise, more natural land/water/air, less difficulty in functioning economically as an LCFer, etc.

tandempower

We often debate the usefulness of definitions. What often makes it difficult to discuss things with you is that you will play with definitions in a way that obfuscates the real issue. E.g. if logistical efficiency makes it possible for, say, 20 people to LCF per motor-vehicle, that would mean 1/20th the number of motor-vehicle; but you would still question whether they are living 'car free' because each of them is sharing that one car. You are implying that 20 people sharing one car is the same as each person driving their own car, because neither is 'car free,' but that ignores the difference between a 20/1 ratio of people to cars vs. a 1/1 ratio. 20/1 people to cars is more car-free than 1/1 people to cars.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think your hostility toward my views boils down to is that you like bull economic activity, so it makes you wince to think about the ratio of cars per capita declining. So you will always argue against me as long as I support the idea that reducing the number of cars per capita is good. You will do this by accusing me of everything from defying definitions to stupidity to laziness, etc. etc. Why can't you simply acknowledge that I see a possibility of making industrial productivity more efficient so that the footprint of industrialism can be reduce and environmental restoration improved? Less noisy machines and sprawl make LCF much more pleasant, and it is good for overall environmental sustainability. Less pushy bull economic activity takes pressure off people and gives us more free time to bike and walk/hike longer distances. You always have to argue against my view, but why can't you just accept this is how I see things, just as I accept that you have your views and they're not going to change no matter what I say to you or how wrong you may or may not be?

Mobile 155

Yes, but sometimes it is just low hanging fruit and it is hard to resist.

Mobile 155

I do accept it as how you see things. But I also believe you are overstating your opposition to cars in place of your desire to get the benefits of cars for little or no expense. Once that is possible I think you disdain will fall off. Like you wanting people to give you a ride in their car to extend your range when you cycle. The idea that calling up a car to deliver supplies to you while hiking a nature trail is simply one example. You contend that calling up a vehicle will reduce the use of said vehicles. That simply isn't how things have worked for humans for many years.I could use the number of TVs in the average home but to give a closer example lets look at the family cell phone use as an indicator of how autonomous cars would more than likely be used.

When some of us grew up there was one phone in the home. Lets look at a family of four the number close to the average family in the US. If Jack and Jill and their two kids wanted to make or take a phone call they had to use the same phone in the house to do so. Even if you got a second phone or a third it was the same line and one call at a time. You could circumvent that by getting two lines but the phone bill was higher. That same family had one and maybe two cars if they were in my area of the country. If Mary or Billy, Jack and Jill's kids, had to go to dance class and base ball practice one parent might take both kids, drop them off and pick them up at different times. Worked that way for most of the country and almost always when there was just one car. Now lets advance to today with the Phone, TV or computer. Jack and Jill might use the same computer but if Mary and Billy had separate rooms they more than likely have their own computer and a cell phone, and maybe a TV. That is right rather than one line and one phone you have 4 phones, three computers and 3 or 4 TVs.

Now think some more, you who claim to be car free consider calling up a car to deliver food or supplies to you while out hiking a good reason to call up a car to do so. That is one more car than gets called up today. Make that 50,000 hikers and that could easily be 50,000 cars showing up at trail heads just because they can. Move that out to the family dynamics that produced 4 cell phones for 2 adults and 2 children. Jack wants to go bowling and Jill wants to play cards with her friends. Mary wants to go to the dance class and Billy has baseball practice. when you have 4 cell phones how big of a stretch is it to call up 4 autonomous cars? Rather than one car moving three people and maybe two moving 4 people you quickly have 4 cars taking 4 people in 4 different directions at 4 different times of day. Just like what happened with cell phones and even computers.

If you believe people would rather wait and share a common vehicle when they can easily get one on call you have a strange idea of how people think. Because I would be willing to bet money people will use any service that makes their life easier and gives them the freedom to do what they want and someone would be happy to provide that service much like Amazon does for shopping. In conclusion I do not believe autonomous cars will increase bus riders, cyclists or even walkers because it will be as easy as getting on an escalator. If people wanted to walk or ride a bike today there is nothing stopping them. If someone makes getting from point A to point B even easier I don't believe for a second people will ride more or walk more. They will just push a button on a app and head to town or anywhere else their little hearts desire. 200 million cars could easily become 400 million cars and we wouldn't even notice.

How is that for speculation?

Maelochs

That post is just full of good sense. Bravo.

I-Like-To-Bike

Sure just like rubbernecking at a wreck is hard to resist.

Mobile 155

tandempower

In general, I think you are right about 'how things have worked for humans for many years.' The biggest challenge is getting people to use power responsibly, whether it's the power to have more than one TV or to have self-driving vehicles serve them. The problem with assuming the availability of self-driving cars will go awry, however, is that the status quo of human-driven cars has already gone awry, to the point where most people feel even more powerless than I do to get around without cars as the primary method of transportation, let alone as a backup plan.

As for what you're saying about me just wanting to save money on a car without losing the benefits, that's part of the bigger problem of how to achieve more free time and environmental preservation, while still taking advantage of technological possibility in a way that makes the world better instead of worse. Think of it this way, I could argue that cars should cost $1000 because their production is mostly automated and it doesn't take that much energy to melt a ton of steel in an arc foundry. That would solve the problem of spending so many hours and giving up so much potential savings to pay for driving, but it still wouldn't solve the problem of all that pavement for everyone to drive and park everywhere. So even if driving is cheap, I would still be looking for ways to reduce the number of cars on the roads and in parking areas, just because that land should be covered with more trees and living ecology and less pavement and motor-vehicles.

Another way to look at it is to think how much time people used to spend waiting for a phone call, not leaving the house because they were afraid they'd miss a call. Then, cell phones made it possible to go out and take calls wherever but people started to prefer texting, because they don't have to take calls all the time. So the mobile telephony technology liberated people to go out more, and as a result more people spend more time walking/biking now than before, and I think self-driving cars could have a similar effect, if people can overcome certain other mental/cultural obstructions that prevent them from realizing the fundamental benefits of walking/biking instead of driving around between venues.

Since you seem so adept at analyzing human-technological behavior, maybe you can explain when it occurs that technologies become harnessed by the creative spirit that organizes and consolidates processes into more efficient forms. If I called on a car to bring food out to a hiking trail instead of hiking to the store to pick up the supplies myself, I would only do so because of the expense of camping near the store if the hike was too far to make it back to the trail before sundown. Why do I want to avoid paid camping? Because it puts me in a situation where I have to work more than necessary to get back that money spent on camping. I might as well just stay home and get more free time to walk around locally for exercise without having to go spend more time working. When I walk/hike/bike around locally, however, I dream of taking it to the next level and traveling longer distance. I am a rational person, however, so I am not going to waste money I wouldn't otherwise spend indulging in adventures. I have family and a strong interest in free time and protecting the environment from destructive economic investments that cause land-clearing, so I am trying to minimize my footprint in various ways. I wouldn't actually be harming the environment by taking longer distance hikes/bike-tours and camping, but I would if I was blowing money and working more to make it back, because every job you do always makes more money for others who are above you, such as managers, investors, etc. So the more you work, the more you are contributing to the aggressive bull economic activity that keeps clearing land of trees and animals to pave it and cover it with buildings.

Maybe one day, LCF will be growing as driving/parking are shrinking and it will become possible to imagine economic growth without a corresponding gradual usurpation of ecological land, but that day isn't here yet. When it comes, if it ever does, I will want to work more to the extent my work can support the reforestation of deforested areas, but I will be skeptical and weary of the possibility that some economic planners have only created such projects as a way of invigorating the economy so they can move more money around to the accounts where they want it for selfish reasons, and that's not the interest I want to serve, so I am always trying to vote for more free time and thus liberty to manage one's own time, rather than support the economy where people submit to management in exchange for money.

It's well thought out and well-explained, but it assumes bull economic growth. When growth is in recession, people use their intelligence to consolidate activities and save money, i.e. because they don't see the economy providing them with a secure source of income. Taking buses and other shared vehicles may be less comfortable and convenient than having one or more cars at your beckon call, but it is more efficient in many ways, so there is an incentive to sacrifice a little and take buses if the alternative is running out money faster than you would otherwise.

Rollfast

it's nice in here, you know...forget cars

wphamilton

All good, except that more likely the 200 million car fleet becomes 100 million or 50 million or even fewer, because the cars are being utilized instead of spending time in a parking spot. This whole question is more about economics than human nature though.

Would it result in more walking and bike riding? Not for me, but I can imagine, I'm going a mile to the convenience store and have a choice of walking, riding or pinging a car. If the car is right there, awaiting my thumbprint unlock on my phone, yeah I probably take the car. If I have to wait say, 10 or 15 minutes, maybe I'd just keep walking or take the bike to begin with. So it's still just economics, if you include time in the transaction.

If it really worked efficiently, there'd be a small area like a taxi stop that always had a car or two, or a couple of minutes away assuming these have autonomous capability. It's a pretty attractive idea.

Maelochs

Wrong, i believe (and in this forum, belief Definitely trumps factual information.)

People would simply call a car 15 minutes earlier.

People who want to walk already do, by and large. people who want to bike, do. Just like you could build a trillion beach volleyball centers, curling sheets, MMA cages .... only so many people are interested in any activity. A lot might try it for a while ... but just like gym memberships, one in ten come back more than four times (made-up numbers.)

of course,w e are always thinking about "just walk to the store, it's only 15 minutes" when the weather is good, the neighborhood is good, and the person doesn't plan on getting more than a couple items.

And even so ... a forty-minute round trip versus fifteen, and they can text on the ride? people will call the car.

Also, four mph is a brisk walk .... people have to Want to walk more than 2.5 or 3 mph .... how many people Want to walk briskly? The ones who already do.

Ask an overweight middle-aged Floridian who hasn't walked Anywhere briskly in 25 years to walk at 4 mph two miles in 92-degree heat ... and when that person arrives home sweating hard and puffing with the plastic bag cutting his or her fingers .... that is one person converted to calling a car. Same thing in New Hampshire eight months of the year. Too hot, too cold, too far ... and if a person takes 40 minutes each way suddenly a "quick trip to the convenience store" takes an hour and a half, and half that person's evening and all of his.//her energy is used up.

People who like human-powered transport are just different. And people who don't, aren't about to change. I guarantee you for most people the "inconvenience" of calling 15 minutes before s/he wants to leave is far smaller than the inconvenience of actually walking anywhere further than to the driveway.

it is just like what a lot of people here deny, except for people who actually know poor people of have visited poor nations ... most of the people who don't have the option of convenience, (cars, stores, in some cases food and water and shelter) Want those things. The world isn't full of noble paupers reveling in the fact that they have to carry water to their homes from the well ... it is full of people who see how Americans live and want to live this way.

And America isn't full of people who wish they could walk to the store, but they cannot because they own a car. it is full of people who own cars because they Do Not Want to Walk.

Obviously people who can afford cars can afford bikes with trailers ... but they have cars.

wphamilton

Yeah, that's what I was getting at with convenience store and about a mile. I don't know why you say "wrong", since I thought that I was implying that it wouldn't really reduce vehicle miles, which I think you're agreeing with. Maybe I didn't go into that very far.

I have a car, a pretty nice one by my standards, (so maybe I'm posting in the wrong forum), so I'm just going by my own behavior here. I never take it to work*, I'll use it to buy groceries, longer errands on the weekends, not often for the close errands, and so on. I am supposing that I don't have it, can ping one up instead, what is my decision process?

Costs a buck and I have to wait 15 minutes, vs walk 15 minutes, I see that as an economic question where time and effort have a value and I'll probably walk by. My depressingly predictable location history shows that many of my trips are like this, short, to the same places, and I drive if I happen to be impatient but otherwise bike. Or walk.

Waiting 15 minutes for a car to show up, I hate that. It's one of the reasons I never take the bus, anywhere. If it's just there, waiting for me, I could activate it and go even if I originally intended to walk. 30 minutes, that's not going to work for an impulse trip. If that's at both ends, forget about it. So I think there is a huge "it depends" there.

*seems to be the big flaw in the scheme, driving to work. All of us driving at the same time, wouldn't really allow us to reduce the fleet size since it's closer to 1 vehicle per commute. Unless it used some kind of Uber scheme for carpooling but that has all the drawbacks of having to wait, schedule, put up with other people etc.

Maelochs

"What we had here ... was Failure to Communicate."

I didn't get that from your post ... sorry. Sometimes even though I am perfect (aren't we all, here?) I sometimes get it wrong.

Mobile 155

tandempower

Why don't people wait for an empty elevator? Answer: because it is normal to board an elevator with whomever else is waiting for it as well. With cars that don't drive themselves, people have to be responsible for their property, so there is a rationality to not sharing rides. However, when a car is a shared car, there is a rationality to giving as many rides with the same vehicle as possible. Sure, people can pay more to ride alone and/or to get a direct ride to their destination where they don't have to walk at all; but they can also pay a lower fare to share a ride with other passengers and/or get dropped off a few blocks from their destination.

With human-driven cars there is simply no option besides taking your car with you wherever you go unless you are going to leave it at home completely. A driver cannot get out and hand his car over to another driver who takes it over without entrusting that driver to take care of the owner's property. You don't want to lend out your car or give people rides unless you really care about them or unless it is worth the money they are willing to pay, and how many people really want to deal with giving rides for extra money if they have a good-paying job? Autonomous vehicles will simply free people to share rides in so many ways that either isn't possible or convenient with human owner-operators.

350htrr

WOW, this actually makes perfect sense... and... this is perfectly workable too...

Mobile 155

tandempower

Idk how many times I have to explain to you that I don't like my freedom being taken away and sold back to me. You love the idea of making money to pay for camping, but I would prefer to have freedom to camp freely and only work for money to spend on other things besides freedom. Let freedom be free and let people work for the things that require labor to produce.

Mobile 155