Autonomous vehicles don't impede transit advocacy, and they genuinely can be massive accessibility improvements to disabled and disadvantaged populations. Unless you have a magic wand to make those changes, it seems like AVs are an improvement over the current situation?
Transit changes are not required to implement the safety changes made by other countries. The cause and effect is reversed here: safety changes make transit more appealing because safety changes tend to decrease peak vehicle capacity, but transit does not make safety more appealing to untrained and overconfident (or willfully unsafe) drivers. You can’t just focus on transit while ignoring drivers and expect people to stop dying.
I remember during the first days of Covid lockdown how 99% of the cars on the busy hill outside my apartment were replaced by transit, with a commute distance of zero miles. The people who liked to do downhill racing on that hill during the day sped up from their usual brake-screech limits of 40mph to as high as 70mph, in a 35mph residential with an unsignaled busy crosswalk. And they continued doing this until the end of the lockdown when other cars got in their way again. Transit might reduce total car volume but it would increase the mean kill rate per roadway vehicle without safety culture and spending shifts.
Regardless, people who are on transit or in autonomous vehicles are people who won't be increasing roadway risk. AVs can adopt new driving rules without the typical years of political struggle over license points. AVs also have capabilities for better traffic shaping in cities. Responding to SF's market street closure was very easy with AVs. It was the uber drivers and tourists who struggled.
Meanwhile, she persisted, we could have zero deaths tomorrow if it was important to our culture. As we each recognized, the culture clearly isn’t changing anytime soon — but that lack of cultural concern invalidates “reduces deaths” as a relevant marketing claim for robotic cars. Why is it the preferred talking point for advocates when it’s demonstrably irrelevant?
If we lowered the speed limit to 20 miles per hour country wide we would be a lot closer to zero deaths. But at what cost?
We live in an imperfect world of trade offs, not perfect solutions. Even requiring people to wear seatbelts has a cost
I genuinely don't understand what policy changes you think would lead to zero deaths tomorrow. We'd still have deaths even if no one left their driveway without a valid CDL and a resolve to never exceed 10km/h.
Yeah, I get that; and! some of it is particularly nonintuitive outcomes from human psych/soci that look ghastly through a rational behavior lens. There’s a lot of reading that one can do on the subject if independently curious.
