Google Says Its Self-Driving Cars Can Tackle City Streets Now

Armenius said:
I wasn't saying that the force would be any higher with a computer in control. Also, there is a reason they use a neck restraining device and 5-point safety belt in professional racing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but are people or computers really gonna be driving around at speeds that high on normal roads with cars the use to go to and from work? It's kinda expensive to have a race car and they get pretty lame-o gas mileage.
 
okashira said:
Whoa Whoa Whoa. If I am reading this right, you were the one at fault in this incident.
You were going to make a right turn, pulled in front a biker who had right of way in the bike lane and he hit you. That's your fault. Your turn signal does NOTHING to give you right of way.
If there is a biker, or anything in a lane to your right thats traveling in the same direction you have to turn WELL ahead of them or you slow and let them pass.
Click to expand...

Sorry, poorly described. I see how it sounds bad when you aren't familiar with the road. While there is a bike lane freshly painted on the road, (because they didn't actually repave anything) it merges around every intersection with the straight/right turn lane to accommodate the left turn lane. There is only one thru lane, the biker was well behind me, but like I was saying before, felt like the rules of the road did not apply to him.
Code: 
| < |^ >|
| L |   |
|   |   |
|   |   |
|   |   |
\   |   |
  \ |   |
|     ; |
|     ; |
|     ; |
|     |B|
|     | |
 
Seeing as how bicycle is my chosen primary mode of transportation (only drive or take public transit when the weather would cause hypothermia or otherwise ruin my day) I appreciate that extra detail they've put into the car navigation system.

There are certain roads in the general Puget Sound, where I am actually safer towards the yellow line in the middle of the road, because both oncoming and drivers of traffic behind me can see me. I've lost count the number of times cars have done something terrible just because I am in a blind spot -- I actually started to get the mindset that bike gloves come padded in the knuckles so you can punch their damned cars to let them know you are there.

I obey most traffic laws aside from riding down the center left of the road when I feel that is safer (rather than keeping right even when taking a lane), but I will blow a red light if there is no one at the intersection and I am not detected by the pressure plates. I will also switch to a sidewalk if necessary and use a crosswalk to gain pedestrian right of way, if it's faster for me to get to my destination. I actually can't stand it when I see cyclists riding on the wrong side of the road, or going the wrong way down a one-way street -- they have to adhere to the same laws of the road as a motor vehicle, without them doing so, we cyclists may lose our right to take and keep lanes.

I love what Google is doing with this project. This is a grand solution to asian soccer moms in mini-vans. :p
 
Even that diagram is not entirely accurate, there's metered parking on the side of the street that ends around intersections. The straight/right lane moves into that vacated parking space (in addition to merging with the bike lane) to fully accommodate the left turn lane.
 
Farkle said:
This is a grand solution to asian soccer moms in mini-vans. :p
Click to expand...

Except that young males trying to drive too fast and street racing (or old guys since they never really grow out of that stupid stuff) are far more dangerous drivers. When women get into accidents, its not fatal nearly as often. Guys kill a lot more people because of their hyper-aggressive hormone-filled ball bag they're busy swinging around at people like a set of hairy bolas while they drive around listening to country or rock music wearing their stupid mirrored sunglasses and fingerless driving gloves.
 
Ur_Mom said:
I wonder how these cars do in ice or spotty ice conditions... Snow... What about with obstacles in the same thing. Or hydroplaning. Probably not too great, and I know they aren't road ready for that yet, but I'm curious as to how it would fare.
Click to expand...

There is still a lot of intuition, feel, and other nuances to driving that I don't think can quite be computed perfectly. (same with the other example above with the cat and kid)

A computer might be able to correct mostly for wheel slippage, etc. but based on how often I turn of traction control in any of my cars (ok, sometimes it's purely for fun, but...) I feel that takes away from my abilities, and what I've trained myself to do when I FEEL these things. I'm not perfect, but I do a good job under these less than optimal conditions. I haven't ridden in one of these new-fangled-self-drivin'autoMObiles, but I seriously have doubts about some of these things.

As soon as the computer can take it to an almost artistic level (which is basically what any good driver is... a driving artist...) I'm not sure I trust it.

Show me the "daredevil" version on a crazy obstacle track. When I see performance there, I'll trust the "daily driver" version on the road...
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Except that young males trying to drive too fast and street racing (or old guys since they never really grow out of that stupid stuff) are far more dangerous drivers. When women get into accidents, its not fatal nearly as often. Guys kill a lot more people because of their hyper-aggressive hormone-filled ball bag they're busy swinging around at people like a set of hairy bolas while they drive around listening to country or rock music wearing their stupid mirrored sunglasses and fingerless driving gloves.
Click to expand...

You just seem to have no real clue about many of the things you respond to... :confused:
 
Ur_Mom said:
Shoot the hostage.

I don't think it would judge those obstacles by the mass. It's just judge them as an obstacle. As far as child vs. cat... Possible. But, then you have to think of size differences. What if there was a mother and child crossing the street and it had to decide. Would it take out the smaller one?

So many variables that a human could figure out quickly (if they don't freeze with shock). A computer could probably do it, but it'd need to be done via a program. It'd need to know the difference between the hedge and a tree and a bike and a rock and .. .. .. If it got to that level, we'd have robots able to do a lot more, too. Processing power to scan the visuals and label each object, then decide on which would yield the easiest impact.
Click to expand...

The car would be a robot. I don't even expect passengers to pay close enought attention to do anything.

Autonomous cars = robot car.

"Save her! Save the girl!"
 
J3RK said:
You just seem to have no real clue about many of the things you respond to... :confused:
Click to expand...

Or maybe I do...

On the high end, the New York Times reported in August on a city traffic study that revealed a shocking four of every five serious or fatal vehicle/pedestrian accidents in New York City were caused by male drivers. This figure is only partially explained by the predominance of male drivers of taxis and other commercial vehicles, as well as the fact that men are behind the wheel for more than 60 percent of the total annual driving miles in the U.S. Traffic studies from around the world have consistently shown higher accident rates among men, a phenomenon that social scientists frequently attribute to testosterone and its affect on aggression and taking risks.
Click to expand...

http://www.younginjurylaw.com/Artic...Who-Causes-More-Motor-Vehicle-Accidents.shtml
 
J3RK said:
You just seem to have no real clue about many of the things you respond to... :confused:
Click to expand...

Creepy does make it easy to come to this conclusion...

In all fairness though, statistics show that men are more dangerous drivers. Sucks to have the Y chromosome sometimes.
 
Kueller said:
The majority of cyclists I encounter on the road seem to expect special protection and consideration from everyone else on the road...but also seem to believe the same rules of the road do not apply to them. The combination of these two traits makes most cyclists incredibly unpredictable on the road which is where the real danger comes from. If they're predictable I can avoid them no problem. It's when they cut past a line of cars at a red light, then jump the light trying to make an illegal left turn (no signal of course) through 4 lanes of traffic at rush hour that all sympathy disappears (that guy didn't get hit, unfortunately).

About 6 months ago I was driving down one of our roads that had been newly repainted with a bike lane (now the cyclists have their own lane, nothing can go wrong!). Signal to make a right turn, start to turn, BLAM biker in the bike lane broadsides my car, because my turn signal didn't apply to him. Once he'd recovered his wits a bit the biker called the cops. Luckily it was busy enough there were 2 witnesses that verified to the cop that I had my turn signal on (I signal early, late/non-signalling for turns is a pet peeve of mine. If you're not signalling BEFORE you touch the brake pedal to slow down for the turn, you're not doing it right. Signal early, it gives the vehicles behind you time to change lanes and avoid slowing down themselves). Anyways cop cited the biker (yay!), biker obviously didn't have liability insurance and I still have a big dent in my passenger door.

There are some responsible cyclists around, but not nearly enough. The cyclists doing it to save the planet seem to be better than the ones on two-wheels for monetary reasons (too stupid and broke to afford a car/insurance/license reinstatement). But being green is by no means a guarantee of competent riding.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but the cop was simply wrong (they are sometimes). Even though the bike is moving slower, it has much less grip than a car, and can't stop as quickly. You pulled ahead of the cyclist (who you should have seen) and pulled into his path too quickly for him to respond. The fact that you signaled beforehand doesn't help. Would you have said the same thing if you were rear ended by an 18 wheeler right after cutting it off? That said, the real blame is on poorly designed bike lanes that create this situation. A bike lane should be more than a paint strip to function properly and shouldn't require cyclists to dodge cars turning in front of them.

In any event, I'm mystified be people who get all upset about bad cyclists but ignore bad drivers. The bad driver can kill you, the cyclist can put a dent in your car. Either can delay you. Every city I've been to has plenty of both. In fact, if more people rode (and there was better infrastructure to help them do so away from traffic), you would be sitting in traffic less. A win all around.

Also, many (but certainly) not all complaints about cyclists not following the rules of the road flow from bad infrastructure that makes it very difficult for a cyclist to follow the rule of law to the letter- things like sensored lights, left turn lanes that require crossing fast traffic, broken up/non existent sidewalks.
 
HAQattaq said:
I would put money on computers over people any day in this scenario. Most people have no idea their car is hydroplaning or sliding. The number of accidents that unfavorable elements and inexperienced drivers cause should really make the safety of the driver-less car shine.
Click to expand...

True. But, I'm hoping they haven't really done a whole lot with it yet. I'd love to see a computer driver out on some spotty ice track with various obstacles. Kind of like pushing over the 4 legged robot and have it steady itself. Or it could be like the driver in the posted video in the real life vs. CARS track. :)

Give it a decade, and I bet they are fast and safe. At first probably slower and more cautious, but given time they will become more efficient (as well as having roadside helpers like radio signals at intersections to notify of traffic, pedestrians, etc..).
 
MrCaffeineX said:
Creepy does make it easy to come to this conclusion...

In all fairness though, statistics show that men are more dangerous drivers. Sucks to have the Y chromosome sometimes.
Click to expand...

I am aware that more men ARE the cause of accidents. However, there are quite a few contributing factors to it, and not just because they are aggressive maniacs. There are plenty of those, don't get me wrong... However, blanket statements don't really help get to the root of a problem.
 
jpm100 said:
The car would be a robot. I don't even expect passengers to pay close enought attention to do anything.

Autonomous cars = robot car.

"Save her! Save the girl!"
Click to expand...

I was thinking more of a humanoid style. We have those that are close, but like I've said before - there is so much different technology being shown that if they were to all get together and put it into one project, we'd have Terminators. We have walking/running robots, arms, hands, eyes, facial expressions, AI, collision avoidance, etc. etc. etc..

I think the most difficult part would be powering the damn thing. So far, most of those things I've mentioned either have a loud ass gas engine, lots of power cables or hydraulic hoses connected.

Advance the Google car AI to where it can tell what various objects are, their density (assumed), movements and things, and put it into one of those walking robots. It wouldn't need to have it's main input be the feeling of the terrain, it would see and anticipate the terrain, with the feeling input being secondary.

Of course, I always think about it in a controlled setting. I never think of it as becoming Sonny or a Terminator. Just building a robot that can mimic a human or animal.
 
J3RK said:
I am aware that more men ARE the cause of accidents. However, there are quite a few contributing factors to it, and not just because they are aggressive maniacs. There are plenty of those, don't get me wrong... However, blanket statements don't really help get to the root of a problem.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Given enough time we hopefully won't have to worry about it anymore, unless they start developing these robot cars with distinct genders. I'm still not sold on the technology, but Google seems to be working at it seriously. I envision it as more of an enhanced cruise-control and the owner's manual will not have to explicitly state, "Driver is not to vacate driver's seat while cruise-control is engaged."
 
J3RK said:
I am aware that more men ARE the cause of accidents. However, there are quite a few contributing factors to it, and not just because they are aggressive maniacs. There are plenty of those, don't get me wrong... However, blanket statements don't really help get to the root of a problem.
Click to expand...

How many times has Danica Patrick wrecked this year? ;)
 
J3RK said:
There is still a lot of intuition, feel, and other nuances to driving that I don't think can quite be computed perfectly. (same with the other example above with the cat and kid)

A computer might be able to correct mostly for wheel slippage, etc. but based on how often I turn of traction control in any of my cars (ok, sometimes it's purely for fun, but...) I feel that takes away from my abilities, and what I've trained myself to do when I FEEL these things. I'm not perfect, but I do a good job under these less than optimal conditions. I haven't ridden in one of these new-fangled-self-drivin'autoMObiles, but I seriously have doubts about some of these things.

As soon as the computer can take it to an almost artistic level (which is basically what any good driver is... a driving artist...) I'm not sure I trust it.

Show me the "daredevil" version on a crazy obstacle track. When I see performance there, I'll trust the "daily driver" version on the road...
Click to expand...

Human intuition and 'feel' is not something I trust.

It comes down to safety. Driver-less cars never get distracted, never get sleepy, never get drunk, don't get emotional, don't need to 'feel' the road.
 
total8.jpg
 
HAQattaq said:
Human intuition and 'feel' is not something I trust.

It comes down to safety. Driver-less cars never get distracted, never get sleepy, never get drunk, don't get emotional, don't need to 'feel' the road.
Click to expand...

Programmers never get distracted, never get sleepy, never get drunk. Sure QC can minimize mistakes, but those that get through copied times a million vehicles.
 
J3RK said:
You just seem to have no real clue about many of the things you respond to... :confused:
Click to expand...
I know, right? I referenced the use of advanced restraining systems in professional racing that it is more appropriate to limit the motion of your extremities in the result of high g-forces being applied to a person's body, in direct response to him stating that being "flacid" in a collision results in less serious injury. It doesn't matter if you're racing or not because many collisions can result in triple digit g-forces being exerted on your body long enough to cause trauma.

But trolls are going to troll...
 
Any autonomy is better than all the dumb drivers on the road. The ones who decide to rear end someone else through distraction during peak hours and make the population of several cities late, constantly changing lanes but not going anywhere faster, constantly accelerating and stopping instead of maintaining a steady speed, dangerously cutting across several lanes to catch a missed exit instead of safely waiting for the next exit, cuts in front of you and slams on the brakes to exit instead of falling in behind, etc.
 
HAQattaq said:
Human intuition and 'feel' is not something I trust.

It comes down to safety. Driver-less cars never get distracted, never get sleepy, never get drunk, don't get emotional, don't need to 'feel' the road.
Click to expand...

I think those are completely separate items. I agree with distracted, drunk, etc. completely. I was more talking about feeling the road conditions, and possibly being able to react creatively where a computer would just keep trying to compute. I'm pretty sure a split second decision on my part, and knowing the feel of my car and how it reacts has saved me on many occasions, and until I see comparisons, I'm just doubting the computer's abilities on these border cases.

Something akin to disengaging autopilot on your way to Dagobah because you're in tune with your vehicle.

Also, my statements here in no way apply to the lowest common denominator which is where something like this will really be helpful. There are those of us who enjoy driving, practice driving, get a true feel for it, in (like I said above) an artistic sort of way.

Totally agree about misbehavior, negligence, etc.

I've been known to misbehave in a car, but not when conditions are even remotely dangerous to other people, and most of the time myself either. I've hit the gas on an empty freeway, drifted on ramps when no other cars were around, etc. I'd never put anyone in danger though including myself. (either based on conditions, proximity, unwilling passengers, etc. etc. etc.) I guess one just has to have some form of logic, judgement, skill, etc.
 
Armenius said:
I know, right? I referenced the use of advanced restraining systems in professional racing that it is more appropriate to limit the motion of your extremities in the result of high g-forces being applied to a person's body, in direct response to him stating that being "flacid" in a collision results in less serious injury. It doesn't matter if you're racing or not because many collisions can result in triple digit g-forces being exerted on your body long enough to cause trauma.

But trolls are going to troll...
Click to expand...

True, and especially the thing about choosing where one lives, being at fault for not living closer, etc. etc. I have four kids. Yes, my and my wife's choice, but having that many necessitates a large vehicle. We don't drive a gigant-o-tron-9000 MkIV, but we do have a mini-van, and then a Volvo C70 for when we don't all need to go somewhere at the same time. I live reasonably close to work, but still outside of Seattle since housing in the city is bordering on San Francisco/LA/NYC prices these days. (not quite but getting there) I sure as hell don't need any additional taxes, tracking devices, etc. because I have a necessity to drive a bit.
 
No edit: I also make decent money these days, but that still doesn't mean I want the government to extract more of it from me when they squander all the rest of it that I "give" them...
 
jpm100 said:
Programmers never get distracted, never get sleepy, never get drunk. Sure QC can minimize mistakes, but those that get through copied times a million vehicles.
Click to expand...

thats your view on the industry? Clearly you have never ever ever ever coded in a regulated environment. I currently write code for FAA certified equipment and the amount of regulation and testing for a piece of equipment to be certified is extraordinary. take your narrow minded view of an industry you dont know anything about somewhere else, not a tech forum
 
J3RK said:
Something akin to disengaging autopilot on your way to Dagobah because you're in tune with your vehicle.
Click to expand...

I like this statement. I don't think driver is ever that complex though. Our emotions may 'think' they are but it's not.
 
HAQattaq said:
I like this statement. I don't think driver is ever that complex though. Our emotions may 'think' they are but it's not.
Click to expand...

This is where I have an issue. Driving to work daily? Give me an automated car.

Driving the backroads? Let me do the driving. Driving can be very fun and emotional. My emotions "think" I'm having fun, and I am. Changing gears, accelerating, having a good time. Being in control of your car and learning it's limits is fun.

A Google car wouldn't drift, wouldn't burn out, wouldn't be fun. It'd be safe, cautious and convenient. Just what you want when you commute somewhere. Just not what you want when you want to have fun driving. Some cars are fun to drive. For me, driving used to be fun. It still can be, when I'm not commuting or whatever.
 
Johnny Cabs were the perfect use of automated vehicles. The overly-pleasant robot with the appearance of an old-fashioned milk-man added a sense of security. Then Arnold had to rip it apart to actually drive the vehicle, which always made me wonder, why was there a joystick to control the vehicle in the first place?
 
It depends entirely on how mundane a task driving is for someone. If it's strictly a means to get to and from work/school/etc. then yes, I agree completely. I took the bus when I worked somewhere that it was convenient to do so. Now I'd have to take three buses to get the same distance as one 12 minute bus ride at my old job. I'm not opposed to simple, automated, public, or any other form of alternative transportation.

However, I take quite a few drives just for fun. My parents live in a rural area with some decently safe, yet fun roads to drive on. I grew up on those roads, and know what the limits are, and don't push it. It's still fun to drive though in a fun car. The roads up the mountain passes here (in good weather) can be INCREDIBLY fun in the right car. I definitely wouldn't want a computer driving me on those roads though when you have a sheer cliff that drops 1000 feet on one side. To continue my earlier nerd analogies, "one miscalculation could send you right over that cliff and that would end your trip pretty fast. wouldn't it?" (paraphrased of course...) :D
 
phawkins633 said:
I'm sorry, perhaps I don't understand, but why DO cyclists have total right of way?? I mean obviously your not just going to say fuck them and hit them with your car, but I get the impression that if a bike is in even a moderate proximity, the car just completely stops until there are no bikes around..? It would take hours just to go through any downtown streets...maybe I'm just being daft..LOL
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't they? Even if the cyclist is acting like a complete idiot, she still gets benefit of the doubt. Why? Because its a human life at stake, not a dent in your bumper.

No one said the road is built only for cars, no one gave you exclusive rights to the road. Cyclists, bikes etc are much more vulnerable and given the way cars generally ignore cyclists and cause them harm every single day, cyclists should have even more right of way.
 
MrCrispy said:
Why shouldn't they? Even if the cyclist is acting like a complete idiot, she still gets benefit of the doubt. Why? Because its a human life at stake, not a dent in your bumper.

No one said the road is built only for cars, no one gave you exclusive rights to the road. Cyclists, bikes etc are much more vulnerable and given the way cars generally ignore cyclists and cause them harm every single day, cyclists should have even more right of way.
Click to expand...

Depending on the state, aren't you considered a motor vehicle and/or subject to all of the same laws/restrictions while bicycling on the road?
 
Armenius said:
I know, right? I referenced the use of advanced restraining systems in professional racing that it is more appropriate to limit the motion of your extremities in the result of high g-forces being applied to a person's body, in direct response to him stating that being "flacid" in a collision results in less serious injury. It doesn't matter if you're racing or not because many collisions can result in triple digit g-forces being exerted on your body long enough to cause trauma.
Click to expand...

If you can't tell the difference between racing and driving to work, then I dunno if you should be allowed to drive at all.

J3RK said:
True, and especially the thing about choosing where one lives, being at fault for not living closer, etc. etc. I have four kids. Yes, my and my wife's choice, but having that many necessitates a large vehicle. We don't drive a gigant-o-tron-9000 MkIV, but we do have a mini-van, and then a Volvo C70 for when we don't all need to go somewhere at the same time. I live reasonably close to work, but still outside of Seattle since housing in the city is bordering on San Francisco/LA/NYC prices these days. (not quite but getting there) I sure as hell don't need any additional taxes, tracking devices, etc. because I have a necessity to drive a bit.
Click to expand...

My comment didn't single you out, but yeah, I don't even think having kids at all is a good idea since they're expensive and the world is already totally overpopulated like really badly, but if you wanna justify it somehow to yourself that's up to you. It won't change whether or not a black box thingey in a car is ticketing people or making them pay more taxes for proportionally extra wear they do to streets and roads for driving more or having a bignormous stupid vehicle instead of a sensible car.
 
I can justify my reasons for not wanting to be taxed more all day long. It won't get us anywhere though. If you meant justifying having my kids... well... you'll just never know... I witness incredible things every single day of my life. They're definitely not for everyone, and I would have at one point thought myself included there, but you'll never know what it's like until you have one. Mine are brilliant if I do say so myself, though they seem to have my flair for mischief... Helps me keep my edge though. And, yes, it is what I would consider a proper justification for a larger vehicle. If you're someone in that role, it's your responsibility to do it right, and take on such responsibilities. If not, ride your bike, walk, roll, drive your Prius and enjoy! Don't try to tell me I should be taxed more on how I live though. (unless you add a couple digits to my income, then I'll come quietly...)
 
MrCaffeineX said:
Depending on the state, aren't you considered a motor vehicle and/or subject to all of the same laws/restrictions while bicycling on the road?
Click to expand...

This is my issue. It's like the feminists, everyone wants to be treated the same but yet get special benefits.

Are cyclist treated like motor vehicles (can ride in the traffic lane) or like pedestrians (can use sidewalks and crosswalks)? Do they have to follow the motor vehicle laws and stop at all stop signs/lights, or are they pedestrians and can choose to jump over to the crosswalk at a red light? It makes dealing with them extremely difficult because you never know which path they are going to take.

In that example of a bike lane... why include a separate cyclist lane that just creates extra confusion. If they already have the right to be on the road, just leave the right-hand lane the same and require them to follow normal traffic laws. And just as driving a car, they should leave enough space between themselves and the vehicle in front of them to adequately stop. In that instance, they would need to come to a stop just like a regular motor vehicle until the vehicle in front of it made it's turn. The idea of having a bike lane merge into a turning lane just seems like asking to get people injured, especially depending on how much distance there is between the merge and the intersection.

Of course motorcycles are the next closest thing on my list. The number of times I see them passing on the shoulder, between cars on the dotted line during heavy traffic, etc. is mind blowing. At least cyclists have the excuse of if they have to stop it takes physical energy to start going again.

The idea of taxing people extra for longer commutes... BS! Tell you what, you can tax me extra when you put a working, sustainable mass transit system in for the midwest. Until then I already pay extra in the way of gas and tolls, and I don't complain about it. It's the cost I'm willing to pay to live where I do (46 mile commute), but adding an extra cost just because is wrong.

Heck, I've even thought about buying $1000 beater just to park at the park and ride 5 miles from my work. Then I could drive the 10 miles from my house to the park and ride, take it to the one by my work, drive the beater to work and then the reverse at the end of the day. But between the cost of the vehicle, insurance on an extra vehicle, mass transit fees, possibility of being broken into/stolen, and extra time for weird bus schedules I don't think I would even break even to my cost of gas/tolls

As for the actual topic, bring them on! If I could take a bus from my front door to my work I would, so this sounds like the next best thing ;)
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
If you can't tell the difference between racing and driving to work, then I dunno if you should be allowed to drive at all.



My comment didn't single you out, but yeah, I don't even think having kids at all is a good idea since they're expensive and the world is already totally overpopulated like really badly, but if you wanna justify it somehow to yourself that's up to you. It won't change whether or not a black box thingey in a car is ticketing people or making them pay more taxes for proportionally extra wear they do to streets and roads for driving more or having a bignormous stupid vehicle instead of a sensible car.
Click to expand...

Specifically, I think his point was that when driving a 'bignormous' vehicle, one is already paying more taxes. Taxes on gasoline are primarily supposed to go to road maintenance/repair. If one is driving a vehicle which consumes more gasoline, then one is already paying a larger amount in tax for that privilege, in addition to typically paying more in sales tax when purchasing said vehicle or in insurance premiums to insure said vehicle. There are already costs built into the current system that encourage people to drive smaller, more-efficient vehicles, without the government taxing people on a per-mile basis.

Speaking of taxes, property taxes can factor heavily into people's decisions about where to live and there are definitely examples out there where the tax rate on property prevents people from living in close proximity to where they work. Some of them probably have some choice in the matter, but there are a number of socio-economic factors that affect decisions like these which are largely ignored by your previously stated reasoning.

As far as over-population is concerned, yes there are a lot of people on the planet, but to this point it has not been proven that the planet is incapable of supporting said numbers. That would be a situation of true overpopulation. Society needs to address some major concerns in the near future, but unless you subscribe to the Agenda 21 playbook, which calls for the reduction of the human population to a sustainable 500 million worldwide according to the John Birch Society, then there is no reason to believe that we cannot deal with these issues through a combination of policy and technology advancements.

If population control is a goal however, then perhaps automated cars are a good idea. We can have a major computer virus sabotage every automated car during operation and decisively reduce the population during the daily commute...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top