i hate cars

It's a Hokey Name, but I'm Applauding Nonetheless

2004-12-07T01:43:00.000-08:00

This is pretty astonishing — fully autonomous, functioning vehicles running around and taking people places.

Why yes, it does look like a golf cart. That's the beauty of it, see? Who would be afraid of a cute little golf cart?

This thing was actually pretty amazing—it was driving all over the place, among bicyclists and pedestrians. Click on the pic, however, for a very frightened giant lightbulb. (Actually, there is video of a bunch driverless vehicles.)

It all worked out, though.

Why did they have to call them CyberCars? Apparently it's short for "cybernetic." If you say so.

Here's an article from Time, an interview with a guy who's saying just what this blog wants to hear:

The traveling public seems to be warming up to a driverless future. At a recent two-week-long test drive in Antibes, more than 3,000 people were able to take free rides in a CyberCar. Although some passengers might at first be nervous about cruising around town in a machine with no living navigator, Parent says, "in the end they will trust our technology." This gives new meaning to the term designated driver.

TIME Europe Magazine: Look Ma, No Hands -- Dec. 06, 2004

Oh WORD... This is EXACTLY the Droid I've Been Looking For.

2004-11-18T22:27:00.000-08:00

The geeks at Smart Mobs point to a post by another geek, Roland Piquepaille: Will Our Cars Become Our Chauffeurs?

Both are in response to this article:

Self-Navigating Vehicle

NOW we're talking.

First thing I note: they use a different term for essentially the ONLY concept this here blog has to offer (people shouldn't drive) than the ones I've used, such as Robotic Car or Robotic Taxi.

Their term is Self-navigating Vehicle.

It doesn't connote confrontation between people and robots; rather than "No steering wheel for you!", it suggests something like "Look how convenient this would be!"

Maybe that's the right approach to take, I'm not sure.

Anyway, it's a great article, and addresses what I see as the main issue:

The technology is inevitable, what isn't inevitable is popular acceptance of the concept.

You Just Have to Laugh...

2004-11-15T23:09:00.000-08:00

So look.

Drinking and driving sucks.

A lot.

That said, in this particular case, no one was hurt.

But there was... a lot of damage. A lot, a lot, of damage.

Of the most... hysterically surreal variety. I'm not going to attempt to describe it to you. Just... go.

So what woke me up today at 3:38 am? Why, a Civic of course... outside my window.

And when you get done laughing, try considering the fact that the guy who did this probably has a serious drinking problem. Hopefully this will cure him of it.

But also try thinking of the fact that drinking and driving are only related problems because we allow them to be.

Driving sucks, and we need to learn how to eliminate it -- it kills more people than terrorism. And the first step to eliminating it is to begin imagining how we can create a world without driving. Not a world without cars, necessarily -- a world without driving.

Setting your Clock back can Kill You

2004-11-12T18:24:00.000-08:00

The most dangerous day of the year?

According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the road casualty rate - which sets accidents against miles driven - peaks each year in November.

RoSPA blames the increase on the clocks going back at the end of British Summer Time - and it says scrapping this changeover would mean 450 fewer deaths and serious injuries from road accidents.

See, this is dumb.

Time changes are a useful convenience. The mindset here is "well, we have to make our lives worse so that we can drive more safely."

The mindset we need is "we should figure out a way to stop driving so we can live like civilized people."

Driving sucks.

Epilepsy and Driving

2004-09-29T18:22:00.000-07:00

Epilepsy Causes Few Fatal Car Accidents

"The total number of deaths due to alcohol-related fatal crashes is 6.6 times greater than the number of fatal crashes associated with medical conditions and 156 times greater [than] those associated with seizures," say the researchers.

Young drivers aged 16-24 were at the wheel in 24% of all fatal driver crashes.

"The overwhelming majority of fatal crashes are associated with alcohol abuse and other crash risk factors, such as driver error and driving conditions," say the researchers.

One might be inclined to suppose that a medical condition like epilepsy would significantly increase a driver's chances of being involved in a fatal car accident, but one would be incorrect.

This is just further evidence for the single thesis of this blog: the reason that driving kills so many people is that humans can't do it safely. It's not a matter of cutting back alcoholism, or trying to prevent the tiny percentage of epileptic drivers from driving.

It's a matter of getting people to stop controlling their cars, and having machines take over: we should demand that research into robotic vehicles be greatly increased, and that politicians and goverment officials consider this situation for what it is: a daily war on innocent people.

That, and that alone, will prevent the lion's share of deaths due to traffic accidents. Until then, every day means more needless deaths.

Drink-driving.

2004-09-26T08:44:00.000-07:00

I just learned that they call it "drink-driving" in Britain.

Also, this post is an official announcement that I intend to post soon.

Emotions + Driving = Bad Mix

2004-09-20T23:44:00.000-07:00

We are emotional creatures, and our emotions extend to our actions and reactions behind the wheel. Emotions are irrational things; sometimes, there is nothing we can do to control them.

In the article Fatal Traffic Accidents Rise After Terrorism, we see a lot of theorizing about just why the rate of traffic accidents consistently spikes three days after terror attacks in Israel.

Think about the tone of this article: it asks why three days? What is the exact cause?

But that's not the most important question.

This phenomenon exists, and it's killing people. (In societies that are already suffering terribly.)

The important question is what are we going to do to prevent it?

Emotions are part of our nature: they're what make us human. But the place of emotion is within human relationships (emotion really only exists in human interactions), not driving a deadly vehicle.

We need to respect our emotions. We need to respect each other. We need start thinking about how to stop humans from driving.

Surgery Years after an Accident

2004-09-17T08:18:00.000-07:00

Internet bigwig Instapundit is getting oral surgery.

What does this have to do with the stupidity of cars?

It's a lingering consequence of a car accident some years ago. Given what happened to the other people involved, I got off pretty light (thanks to wearing a seatbelt, and leaning against the back of the seat ahead of me at the last minute), though I'd prefer not to have to deal with this. But that's life. See you later.

The thing is, though, life doesn't have to be that way.

We can fix it.

People should stop driving, machines should start.

Of course, this is cold consolation to Instapundit -- all the best to him.

C'mon MIT, That's No Future Car

2004-09-02T21:28:00.000-07:00

Smart mobs mentions in Smart cars that MIT is going to present some research on ~~a moving collander~~ the car of the future:

Actually it looks kinda cool. But, they didn't say the magic words... robotic driver. They kind of hinted at them, though, maybe, if you lean your head in the right direction:

Rather than mere transportation devices, cars of the future can become our wheeled companions that continually learn about the city they inhabit, and use that knowledge to provide an intelligent interface to the resources the city offers. “Our hope is to invent a car that can function as though it has a good London cab driver built in,” says Mitchell.

If MIT isn't going to come out and say it, who is?

MEEEEE!!!

Hybrids and "Software Cars"

2004-08-23T20:03:00.000-07:00

Car and Driver has a piece on hybrid cars [via WorldChanging, again. They should sue me]. They ran tests on the Prius, the Echo, etc, etc, to see which one got the best fuel efficiency.

Which interests us not too much.

What does interest us is the following paragraph:

Instead, think of hybrids as "software" cars. They decide on their own when to start and stop the engine. The Prius can even move smartly with the fuel burner off. In fact, the Prius runs almost half of the EPA city test without the engine. That's a tremendous achievement.

This, comrades, is Right Thinking.

All we need now is an approving article in Car and Driver about "software cars" that decide on their own when to turn the wheel.

There's a Far Side Joke in this Somewhere

2004-08-18T06:47:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting article on applying "biomimicry," the imitation of natural systems, to improving car safety: Locusts Inspire Technology That May Prevent Car Crashes [via WorldChanging]

It seems that locusts (like many insects) have hard-wired collision detection systems. A good idea, when you figure that you're going to be flying in rush hour traffic with a few billion of your closest friends.

Given our radical driving-sucks viewpoint here at I HATE CARS, we hasten to point out the most meaningful consequence of such technology:

The system is envisioned as something that would detect approaching danger before a human notices it. The system would sound an alarm so that the driver could take evasive action. "If the situation gets worse, it would apply the brakes, initiate defensive features, such as tensioning of the seatbelts, and arming inside airbags," Rind said.

Fewer fender benders, yes, but what we consider a sign of real progress is taking away control of the vehicle from humans. When such technology is put into place, and when it (inevitably) becomes clear that it is safer than human-controlled vehicles, then we'll really be getting somewhere.

The Tired Old SUV Debate

2004-08-05T22:14:00.000-07:00

California's SUV Ban - The Golden State has outlawed big SUVs on many of its roads but doesn't seem to know it.

From Slate, via the ever-intriguing WorldChanging.

The author argues that since a lot of SUVs are over 6000 lbs, they should be banned from residential streets. Hahah, fat chance.

But the whole topic of the tax schemes that encourage drivers to buy SUVs is a pretty interesting. It's clearly working.

So, forget about the SUVs for a second, and think about the day when robotic vehicles first become available. They'll be safer, more efficient, and a fun ride.

Will there be political will to give riders who choose to use robotic vehicles a discount for doing so? Or, should be thinking of an even more radical model -- why own a robotic vehicle, when you could "subscribe" to an always-on robotic taxi? Let the robotic taxi company handle maintenaince, insurance, and all that stuff.

You just ride.

No, That Definitely Won't Work

2004-07-25T22:05:00.000-07:00

These Cars Smile. That Makes Me Laugh. I Mean Cry.

2004-07-25T20:30:00.000-07:00

The NYT reports on a new patent for An Automobile with Feelings.

The idea here is that technology be developed to make automobiles, cartoon-like, "wink" and "blush" and bend their windshield wipers into angry eyebrows.

Or something.

This is so off the deep end.

And it's clearly indicative of the generally wrong-headed approach that science and industry have taken to "innovation" in the evolution of the automobile.

Practically speaking, the most important development that the automotive industry could make would be to make cars automatic, i.e., robotically driven. People have not evolved the senses necessary to control a two-and-a-half-ton hurtling metal missile as it careens down highways two or three feet away from other cars, filled with other people.

The inventors believe these features on cars will make driving more entertaining.

No it won't. Driving shouldn't be entertaining. Driving should be recognized for what it is: unnecessary risk, and the source of tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths every year, all over the world.

It sucks, we should fix it.

Numbers and Driving...

2004-07-19T16:38:00.000-07:00

Boing Boing: Another issue of ScienceMatters@Berkeley points to The Mathematics of High-Tech Highways in a Berkeley publication called Science Matters.

The reason this sort of stuff interests me is that once we fix transportation, and have machines driving as they should be, the algorithms developed will still be applicable.

WaPo on Retiming Traffic Lights

2004-07-18T19:41:00.000-07:00

To Keep Traffic Rolling, Re-timing Is Everything

This is a series of articles on how people are trying to improve the traffic insanity that is the DC metro area. Maybe timing lights will help.

Of course, I'm remaining firmly on the skeptical side in this blog.

I adopt the view that the most important aspect of transportation is safety.

Convenience is second.

Do these retiming tricks increase or decrease accidents?
Has it made significant improvements in other cities?

And in any case, while improving traffic flow is all well and good, it addresses the symptom, not the disease, which is this:

People should not be doing the driving, machines should.

Who's Building the Robotic Cars, That's What I Want to Know

2004-07-12T13:21:00.000-07:00

The Coming Robot Revolution - Computerworld

A look at the "coming robotic revolution" (upon which Robotic Nation is an excellent resource), this article has lots of keywords of interest to the topic of mobile robots, which will be the forerunners of robotic transportation. Which is what I'm always whining about.

Must read more about:

When I get the chance...

Automated Automotive Eyes

2004-07-05T22:17:00.000-07:00

A Third Eye In Your Car Can Save Your Life

In an ideal motoring world, Amnon Shashua acknowledges, there would be no need for the EyeQ chip, a processor that analyzes signals from automobile-mounted cameras to warn drivers of potential collisions or other dangerous situations.

"If you're very vigilant and very alert, you don't need a thing to help you," said Dr. Shashua, the chairman and chief scientist of MobilEye, a company based in the Netherlands that produces EyeQ. "Your visual processing is much better than any computer."

I disagree there -- in a perfect world, people wouldn't be driving at all. Yes, it's true that humans currently have better vision processing systems than any computer, and the intelligence to go with it. But most of the dangers inherent in driving come from human error -- fatigue, confusion, anger, and so on and on.

Activist Manute Bol Faces a Long Recovery after Taxi Accident

2004-07-04T21:39:00.000-07:00

Ex-NBA player Bol injured in accident.

Bol is that rarity among sports stars: someone who donates all of his income to charity, namely, to Sudan, his home country.

And now, because we as a nation haven't taken the right steps towards establishing a sane, safe, mechanized method of transportation, it may be years before he can take up his cause again.

This shouldn't happen.

2004-07-04T00:28:00.000-07:00

Here's someone who was able to live through living in a refugee camp in the Sudan, and became a teacher.

If you've been reading anything about the Sudan lately, you know what an accomplishment that is.

Then he was killed by a hit and run driver.

Why do we allow ourselves to take such risks?

Why do we not demand a form of transportation which is sane?

When will we realize that robotic transportation is not science fiction, but rather a necessity for the health of society?

Think about it, that's all I ask.

This blog has moved.

2004-06-21T00:18:00.000-07:00

This blog has moved here, and you found it. Good work.

It's former location was:

http://ihatecars.blogspot.com

And now here we are at:

http://ruphus.com/ihatecars

Wasn't that easier than driving?

The Wrong Unwinding Road

2004-06-19T20:02:00.000-07:00

Kottke points to a Salon article entitled Why don't we do it in the road?

Not even sure to start with this one:

A new school of traffic design says we should get rid of stop signs and red lights and let cars, bikes and people mingle together. It sounds insane, but it works.

No, actually, it is insane.

This is network-o-philia run amok. The author breathlessly recounts her visit to China, where she gazed in awe at the amazing emergent property that is traffic "safety" in China:

In Suzhou, the traffic rules are simple. "There are no rules," as one local told me... During the 10 days I spent in Suzhou last fall, I didn't see a single accident. Really, not a single one.

Really? Because the PRC, known for its tendency to underestimate health crises (*cough* SARS), has other ideas:

Latest research shows that every day in China at least 300 people are killed in traffic accidents, ranking the country top in the world for both the death toll and the death rate. And the figure is accelerating by 10 per cent every year. ... the death toll and death rate per 10,000 automobiles here is eight times more than that in America"... The most important factor was still the negligence of drivers. Statistics showed that last year some 78.5 per cent of the deaths, about 86,000 people, were caused by improper driving.

I mean, seriously. The article goes on to talk about some corner in Friesland, but you've already lost me.

Yes, slowing down traffic could reduce accidents and improve traffic flow, but increasing "intrigue" (their word!) on streets in an attempt to increase drivers' degree of concentration is the most wrong-headed attitude toward traffic safety I think I've ever heard. "Golly, isn't it intriguing that that kid just ran out in front of me?"

Look, I'm not trying to knock the whole concept of emergent properties in systems. What I'm trying to say is that this idea isn't radical enough, and really, it's barely worth considering.

The truly radical idea is that we need to get humans from out behind the driving wheel, and let them resume their proper role of riding.

That would improve safety.

Did You Hear Something Hissing?

2004-06-17T23:03:00.000-07:00

Rosemary Marks has a shrewd observation about those tire inflation machines at gas stations:

Then it struck me that it isn't in the interests of gas stations to maintain these machines to do an accurate job. They are interested in selling the gas for profit. Tyre pressure has a huge effect on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle. The worse the fuel economy the more gas you need.

That's the truth. I spent 12 bucks on a gauge recently myself, and the damn thing doesn't work. It said 18lbs, 18lbs, 18lbs, 65lbs.

Great.

Cars are the Root of All Evil

2004-06-17T20:30:00.000-07:00

Heh, love the title.

Note to self: read this.

Why Aren't People Afraid of Cars?

2004-06-15T23:29:00.000-07:00

This is something I've been struggling to understand. By far the single biggest risk that one can take on an average day is getting into a car and driving.

But no one fears doing such a thing.

I ran across this article, which is really only tangentially related to this blog, but points out something that I think is relevant: people think mundane risk is boring.

Terrorism is many things, but it is not mundane. Car accidents are.

The psychologist Dr Jack Boyle believes that, as a species, we need to latch on to worst-case scenarios because "medium-case" bore us.

"We likes extremes," he said, and added: "Because it is removed from our experience.

"The majority of people exhibit safe and cautious behaviour. Titillating news sells. Doomsday stories are an extension, an enjoyment of extremes which fascinate.