When it comes to autonomous regulation enforcement (whether it's speed, cameras, recording, etc.) I think people's comfort almost completely depends on what they're habituated to. Everyone is comfortable having smartphones that record when and where you tell them too, and cars that drive at whatever speed you can manage (so long as you aren't caught), so there will be a lot of pushback.
Pilots on the other hand are completely used to the restrictions placed on when, where and how they can fly, so the introduction of new restricted airspace is met without fanfare, especially since the restriction is for the safety of all pilots. Even though it would be more convenient, and potentially more free, if pilots were able to fly wherever and whenever they wanted, the traditional regulations make it unthinkable for anyone to suggest deregulation. You can probably say the same thing with the EU and gun control.
What I was trying to get at in the post was to sort of "yes, and" that by pointing out that a small change can give younger folks a different reference point on which to anchor (and this is often how attitudes end up changing - generation over generation).
I appreciate your thoughts on how more widespread autonomous vehicles will change the city in fundamental ways. The point on commute times is quite important as the gains from increasing the size of labor markets across large cities by reducing the discomfort and inefficiency of the commute would be a gamechanger.
But I disagree with the notion that even widely deployed AV tech will make using vehicles for mass murder any less likely. On the contrary, as we start to expect safer streets and fewer drunk drivers, it'll likely make such attacks *easier* to pull off. Even if we outlawed non-autonomous vehicles in parts of the city (very unlikely in the near future), a determined terrorist would bypass these protections or hack some vehicle out there to let them drive it into a crowd.
These technologies won't reduce the number of terrorists looking to use vehicles as weapons of mass murder anytime soon. If we want to reduce the incidence of such crimes the best way is to erect physical barriers or have people gather in places that vehicles any bigger than a golf cart can't actually reach.
Hey Max, thanks for the read and the comment. FWIW, I don't think I disagree.
On the specific question of "Will AVs reduce the incidence or severity of vehicle ramming attacks?", I'm actually agnostic. Really what I'm trying to get at in the last section of this post is that we're on the verge of a paradigm shift in how we regulate certain types of technology in public spaces and that regulation often jumps forward in fits and starts in response to tragedies.
Whether or not that new paradigm will be successful in achieving its goals (and there could be more than one depending on who designs these systems and for what purposes), is very TBD.
Thanks, Jeff! I definitely agree here. I have been writing about self-driving cars in positive ways, too. I get a lot of pushback from the urbanist community. Big divide, so glad to find another bullish on the tech. https://collegetowns.substack.com/p/parking-where-were-going-we-dont
I’m flabbergasted that I have to say this, but regulations disabling smartphone cameras in ‘designated areas’ has profound 1A implications. Many such regulations you speak of contain their own thorny such issues, particularly for blended autonomous-human devices. When the human takes over, if they do or can, the law might need to change, and certainly people’s tolerance and intuitions will change. Your preferences don’t take precedence over the Constitution.
To clarify, I'm not advocating for selective disablement of smartphone cameras in public spaces as decided by some organ of government. That was meant as a specific example of how these types of things could work from a product experience perspective and, fwiw, I'd actually be against such a thing; I happen to think specific civic related use cases like filming police conduct are important.
What would have been useful for me to clarify is the distinction between systems constrained by code because they represent immediate physical risk (e.g. a car) and systems that do not, but that could be used in ways that are harmful or otherwise noxious (e.g. smarthphones).
For this second category, what I can actually imagine playing out (again, not advocating for this, but I can totally see the use case), is for operators of private spaces to constrain the use of certain types of tech, like smartphones, in the places they own. I've been situations that observe chatham house rules and even some private clubs that will physically remove you for taking pictures, so just productizing that instead of having humans policing other humans if the tech were as easy as changing a setting.
Where I think this gets weirder and more interesting is in spaces that we perceive as public, but that are actually private. For example, some public plazas - places with no physical barriers to entry - are privately owned. To return to controversial example of geofencing an area that selectively disables smartphone features, I could imagine the operator of what's effectively a commercial space doing something like that to deal with bad behavior that drives other patrons away.
Anyway, this is how I can imagine things playing out. What I'd actually like to see is a separate question.
When it comes to autonomous regulation enforcement (whether it's speed, cameras, recording, etc.) I think people's comfort almost completely depends on what they're habituated to. Everyone is comfortable having smartphones that record when and where you tell them too, and cars that drive at whatever speed you can manage (so long as you aren't caught), so there will be a lot of pushback.
Pilots on the other hand are completely used to the restrictions placed on when, where and how they can fly, so the introduction of new restricted airspace is met without fanfare, especially since the restriction is for the safety of all pilots. Even though it would be more convenient, and potentially more free, if pilots were able to fly wherever and whenever they wanted, the traditional regulations make it unthinkable for anyone to suggest deregulation. You can probably say the same thing with the EU and gun control.
Agreed, status quo bias is a hell of a drug.
What I was trying to get at in the post was to sort of "yes, and" that by pointing out that a small change can give younger folks a different reference point on which to anchor (and this is often how attitudes end up changing - generation over generation).
I appreciate your thoughts on how more widespread autonomous vehicles will change the city in fundamental ways. The point on commute times is quite important as the gains from increasing the size of labor markets across large cities by reducing the discomfort and inefficiency of the commute would be a gamechanger.
But I disagree with the notion that even widely deployed AV tech will make using vehicles for mass murder any less likely. On the contrary, as we start to expect safer streets and fewer drunk drivers, it'll likely make such attacks *easier* to pull off. Even if we outlawed non-autonomous vehicles in parts of the city (very unlikely in the near future), a determined terrorist would bypass these protections or hack some vehicle out there to let them drive it into a crowd.
These technologies won't reduce the number of terrorists looking to use vehicles as weapons of mass murder anytime soon. If we want to reduce the incidence of such crimes the best way is to erect physical barriers or have people gather in places that vehicles any bigger than a golf cart can't actually reach.
Hey Max, thanks for the read and the comment. FWIW, I don't think I disagree.
On the specific question of "Will AVs reduce the incidence or severity of vehicle ramming attacks?", I'm actually agnostic. Really what I'm trying to get at in the last section of this post is that we're on the verge of a paradigm shift in how we regulate certain types of technology in public spaces and that regulation often jumps forward in fits and starts in response to tragedies.
Whether or not that new paradigm will be successful in achieving its goals (and there could be more than one depending on who designs these systems and for what purposes), is very TBD.
Thanks, Jeff! I definitely agree here. I have been writing about self-driving cars in positive ways, too. I get a lot of pushback from the urbanist community. Big divide, so glad to find another bullish on the tech. https://collegetowns.substack.com/p/parking-where-were-going-we-dont
I’m flabbergasted that I have to say this, but regulations disabling smartphone cameras in ‘designated areas’ has profound 1A implications. Many such regulations you speak of contain their own thorny such issues, particularly for blended autonomous-human devices. When the human takes over, if they do or can, the law might need to change, and certainly people’s tolerance and intuitions will change. Your preferences don’t take precedence over the Constitution.
Hey Eöl, thanks for the read and the comment.
To clarify, I'm not advocating for selective disablement of smartphone cameras in public spaces as decided by some organ of government. That was meant as a specific example of how these types of things could work from a product experience perspective and, fwiw, I'd actually be against such a thing; I happen to think specific civic related use cases like filming police conduct are important.
What would have been useful for me to clarify is the distinction between systems constrained by code because they represent immediate physical risk (e.g. a car) and systems that do not, but that could be used in ways that are harmful or otherwise noxious (e.g. smarthphones).
For this second category, what I can actually imagine playing out (again, not advocating for this, but I can totally see the use case), is for operators of private spaces to constrain the use of certain types of tech, like smartphones, in the places they own. I've been situations that observe chatham house rules and even some private clubs that will physically remove you for taking pictures, so just productizing that instead of having humans policing other humans if the tech were as easy as changing a setting.
Where I think this gets weirder and more interesting is in spaces that we perceive as public, but that are actually private. For example, some public plazas - places with no physical barriers to entry - are privately owned. To return to controversial example of geofencing an area that selectively disables smartphone features, I could imagine the operator of what's effectively a commercial space doing something like that to deal with bad behavior that drives other patrons away.
Anyway, this is how I can imagine things playing out. What I'd actually like to see is a separate question.