And yet, more than a few motorists keep trying to insist that not only do the roads "pay for themselves," but that all of their taxes and related fees also cover "all" of the costs to design, build and maintain the roads.

IF that is true, then why do they need to take money from the general fund? IF that is true, then why have we seen time-and-time again monies that had been earmarked for bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure subverted to the roads, with a "promise" to repay it?

I'd like to add that the roads that criss-cross our neighborhoods should not be so wide as to require the DOT to come in and build bridges, tunnels, or what have you so that cyclists and pedestrians can safely cross them.

There are too many neighborhoods here in St. Pete where either the Interstate or some other road that bisects a neighborhood is so wide that there is a pedestrian bridge over it so that it can be safely crossed by those NOT in a "cage."

As the article you quoted hinted at, induced demand works in both directions. Build new lane-miles and you will more than fill them with cars. Remove lane miles, and the roads will have fewer cars. You'll be happy to hear that stodgy, car-centered CalTrans has finally accepted the first part of that proposition. (They were convinced by some neat work done by someone at my alma mater, UC Davis.)

Google is testing their driverless cars in Austin, Texas and there is an article just about every week on the subject. At this point, the cars have difficulty deciding on the intentions of human drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. They can't pick up on the visual clues that humans can. Their drivers have to take control at times to prevent accidents. They are reported to be like riding with a student driver and are still "learning" the way we humans act. Like Mr. Spok, things don't always "compute'.

All it will take to screw up a highway of driverless cars is a handful of human driver cars that act in a way that doesn't make sense to the system of the driverless cars, such as a fire truck speeding on the shoulder of the road to reach a car on fire or even a cyclist riding in the gutter of the street.

At least in terms of emergency vehicles, it would be a relatively simple measure to set up some sort of an automated "get out of the way" mechanism, not entirely unlike systems currently in place for changing stop lights. I'd imagine that would be far preferable for the emergency personnel, versus having to deal with the deer-in-the-headlights unpredictability of human drivers.

Ultimately, we're still in the earliest phases. I'd be worried if the technology of the driverless cars were to be implemented on a large scale as it exists presently. A lot of development will need to be done before they truly "go live". Writing it off now, seems a bit akin to writing off computers in the 1950's based on the technology they had at the time.

Pretty much my thinking too... and yet I often here people declare, "Oh, I'd never want one of those... I just love driving." All I think at that point is "Really, you enjoy that bumper to bumper crawl at 5PM each evening?"

Though I've been car free for 6 or more years, I always enjoyed driving. I still deliver cars to/from distant cities for friends and relatives, and rent cars for out of town travel. I still love driving on the open road and have no interest in self driving technology.

Of course, I wouldn't have enjoyed driving if commuting to downtown NYC on overcrowded roads, but that wasn't my situation.

Right, you enjoy the driving pictured in the ads for most cars... the sort of driving that most folks experience once or twice a year while on vacation, whereas most folks experience driving more like this:
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Busin...33x16_1600.jpg

1. From what I've read, the federal government normally collects more in gasoline taxes than they spend on transportation issues, so normally the general fund is borrowing from the transportation fund.

2. An interstate by definition needs a bridge, overpass/underpass, or tunnel to cross. Even by other people in "cages". As nothing is supposed to keep the traffic from flowing on them. I believe the correct term is a "limited access highway". So for an LAH, the only access is supposed to be through entrance/exit ramps, and not intersections.

GH

You didn't link your image, but I gather it was probably some bumper to bumper, overcrowded SoCal freeway. That's well and good, but doesn't apply to driving all over the USA.

Generalities based on limited or no experience are meaningless when applied to driving, just as they are when applied to bicycling. This is a large country and conditions vary tremendously place to place.

I think that it was on the Discovery channel, but there was a show I used to watch called "Beyond 2000." It talked about technology that they envisioned past the year 2000. One thing that I thought and still think, particularly with how soundproof most cars are today. That was a damned good idea. That was a red LED mounted in the speedometer or somewhere within the drivers line of sight that would flash when a firetruck, police car or ambulance was coming up behind them with it's lights going.

One of the local stations here recently did a story on them, I guess they're being tested here in The Bay Area as well. And one of the things that was mentioned that by taking the human driver out of the picture that driverless cars could actually and safely travel closer together.

As I said, it's not just the Interstate, it's other local roads. I would have to out "hunting" for them as right now I can't remember which of the local roads are so wide as to have a bridge or a tunnel built so as to make it safe for others to cross.

And over in Tampa we have had a number of school children who have been hit and killed while attempting to cross the road. Now, yes admittedly too many of them occurred because the children in question were not crossing at the corner, but mid-block, in the morning with low light-levels.

But when they gripe about bad driving in the A&S forum they'll have a much tougher time getting the govt to pass laws against majpr corporations than they would against you or I.

This generalization applies to any large population area... and the cities are where the largest populations exist in America... Sure, there is the guy out in Montana or Colorado that drives 60 miles a day on some beautiful stretch of road, but by far most Americans live in cities like Chicago, NYC, Houston, Dallas, LA, Seattle etc, and all those places (and thus all those drivers) experience crushing bumper to bumper traffic on a nearly daily basis. That generalization DOES stand true for the vast majority of drivers out there.

Now the irony is that the car companies sell the sizzle... they show ads full of wonderful empty roads, beautiful vistas and even traffic free down town areas... and that just is not the norm for MOST people. BTW I think I have the experience to say this... I have lived in Chicago, Dallas, So Cal, and PNW (where I have experienced traffic in both Portland and Seattle) as well as visiting friends/family in Phoenix, Washington DC, San Francisco, Houston and Baltimore, just to name a few... so I can frankly say "been there, done that..." this is not coming from a lack of experience.

I have also driven on some darn beautiful roads... and to that I can only say... I'd rather be looking out the window at the sights, than focusing on the road.

Can you site a source for that, because for years the discussion here has been that it is the other way around...

Here is one source that disagrees with you...
Do Roads Pay for Themselves? | Frontier Group

Here is another source that disputes your claim...
Gasoline Taxes and Tolls Pay for Only a Third of State & Local Road Spending | Tax Foundation

BTW there is a very nice chart at that site that shows just how much each state falls short of funding their roadways with gas taxes and fees...

Generalizations are generalizations, roads are roads, and urban areas are urban areas. Cyclists share those same roads and conditions s motorists. That means the same crowding as motorists face on the same roads (excluding interstates).

Though I ride daily on local urban and suburban streets, I don't know that I'd ake up bicycling based on that diet if I weren't already a cyclist who enjoyed riding on open two lane roads.

I don't see myself in competition with motorists, and respect their choice of travel mode the same way I ask that they respect mine. We're both, along with everyone else out there hoping to get to our destinations safely and comfortably, even though we're going about it differently.

You paint a picture of motorists stuck in bumper to bumper traffic. By the same token others could point out to cyclists caught out in the weather or arriving dirty and sweaty at their destinations.

Let's agree to disagree on whether it's possible to enjoy driving, and try to agree that you gave to give respect to get respect.

I am sure driving is enjoyable for a select few... for the vast majority, driving in crowded city conditions, I doubt they find that "enjoyable" by any measure. If if were so enjoyable, why is it reported on the news daily as such a bother.

BTW one thing I have to really laugh about was while visiting Kauai a few years back, I would turn on the morning news... I always got a chuckle out of the "terrible traffic" on the "interstate" on Oaho during the morning commute... Kauai had no such similar traffic problem... sure, there might occasionally be a bit of a back up where the Kuhio Highway met the local roads as you enter Kapaa, but for the most part, those traffic messes just did not exist on Kauai. But every morning, Highway 1 in Oaho just looked terrible.

To a degree I have to agree with Genec. As all too often I see motorists who are stuck in the aforementioned bumper-to-bumper traffic. Which can be mitigated by the use of not only the bicycle as a mode of transportation, but by also using public transportation i.e. the local bus system, and combining the two.

As for arriving at one's destination all "dirty and sweaty." Even if one walked to work they take that chance. And if one's employer doesn't provide showers at work, I'm sure that in more than a few areas that there is a gym of some sort located close by that one can get a membership at in order to store a change of clothes and to take a shower.

That is what a good friend of mine does. He commutes across the The Gandy Bridge from St. Pete to Tampa. He used to have a shower where he worked, but they've moved and he no longer has it. So he got a membership at the nearby YMCA for the purpose of showering and keeping a change of clothes.

With a little creative/outside of the box thinking it is doable.

Did you guys hear about the Google self-driving car that got confused by a rider doing a track stand?

https://www.google.com/search?q=cycl...utf-8&oe=utf-8

The car couldn't figure out what to do.

And yet, the car behaved safely. If one is unsure of the right of way situation or if one strongly suspects that another road user doesn't understand, the safest thing to do is to not enter the intersection. It's not illegal to pass on one's right of way and rarely will this cause loss of life. I'm fine with motor vehicles being cautious. It sure beats what they've been doing, what with 2.4 million car-caused injuries each year.

The only problem with your last sentence is that it isn't the cars that are doing anything it's the operator who is engaging in unsafe actions.

Fortunately, this has little chance of succeeding. The Chinese who pay for our government simply won't approve it.

God help us if it uses a windows operating system. Hope they include a ctrl/alt/del button!

Tell that to a line of thoroughly cheesed passengers behind them. No matter if they drive or not, human behavior abhors slowdowns.

Now put Google buggies in the place of every one of those cars pictured, one person each, doing that same crawl speed for the length of the commute AS ALWAYS.

Self-driving cars are NOT the answer here and the drivers have had 40 years to change it.

I rather think that the expectation that everything will proceed at a car's pace is not a human behavioral expectation, but a learned cultural thing. Even at that, it appears to be irrational as people routinely exceed safe speeds and end up either delayed by a crash or permanently delayed.