Boards
If the motor vehicle was invented today...
Would tons of metal, filled with explosives be allowed to mingle freely with one another and pedestrians, cyclists, etc without any separation (other than a few bits of paint and a few coloured lights)?
Or would the government/the police/the HSE/whoever would decide this sort of thing turn around and say, 'you're having a laugh if you think we're going to let people ride around in 100mph+ bombs, free to drive wherever they want (and into whatever they want)' and ban it?
Would road traffic be like the railways and air traffic, where everything is separated and movements are strictly controlled?
Been thinking about this for a while...
I've often thought about this too!
I'm sure that if the motorway infrastructure did not already exist then there would be no reason to use cars at this stage. Railed transport is clearly more economical and safer. I'm sure when people look back on cars as they were in 20th/21st centuries people will think they were the most crazily dangerous and illogical way of getting around.
MARK MY WORDS, CHINNERY
IN 20 YEARS TIME, THE BICYCLE WILL BE THE PRIMARY MEANS OF TRANSPORT FROM CITY TO CITY.
the bicycle will never take over from the car
there are far, far too many obese people and people with asthma for that too happen
I'm not sure it is more economical, is it?
Even the points about the environment are on somewhat shaky ground if you have four people in a car, considering how we generate the electricity a train uses.
It is safer for sure but life is pretty risky.
cars and roads are more 'economical' in the sense that
they offload a lot of the cost onto the direct user. everyone pays for public transport via taxes. if you drive you pay for your own car.
but that doesn't really consider that roads and car dependence is essentially a feedback loop because of the huge amounts of land that have to be sacrificed for the basic infrastructure to use them. the more cars you have in circulation, the more roads and bigger roads you need for them, and the further away that pushes destinations, which in turn necessitates more expenditure on roads.
Even just taking direct fuel
use into account though, I would guess that running a train with 80 people on board from, let's say... London to Aberdeen would use less energy that 20 cars carrying 4 people each on the same journey.
But they all have to travel to and from the station. My point about people in cars was the green aspect: we make electricity from coal power mostly so it's environmentally impacting. In France they have mostly nuclear power generation, which means trains are more environmental.
Anyway, the point is there're a hell of a lot of variables out there.
well that's why you used to have pretty extensive networks of trams
I see what you mean about the electricity used to move the trains there, but as you say, too many variables. if you want to get really into it you have to look at the environmental impact of covering huge amounts of land in asphalt, in terms of rainwater runoff patterns and heat sink and stuff.
Obviously I was just questioning the assumption in the post that rail transport was more economical. I hope it is.
But from a future standpoint, I'm not sure if we'll see that extensive tram/train network return
it's pretty much impossible to theorise on this though
nothing has shaped the way we live today more than the car.
Bold emphatic claim. Possibly true, but
containerization would fare well if anyone could be bothered to argue the point. Something something computers, too. Henry vacuums wouldn't be far off the top spot, either.
one could argue that massive advances in computer technology,
particularly pertaining networking and such, are a direct response to the huge changes in living patterns seen across the 20th century that were brought on by personal automobile usage.
WE WOULDN'T HAVE ROADS
Fairly sure that if electric cars `win` then
petrol/diesel cars will look fairly fucking weird and terrible in decades to come. But then again, the combustion engine is an utterly incredible invention and will possibly have spinning jenny/printing press levels of adoration once it's obsolete.
I was wondering whether a steering wheel and pedals are the best way to control cars the other day
seems a bit overly complicated, I don't drive though, so it could be a piece of piss for all I know.
just need to press the A button in my experience
Heh.
I wish cars had a load of settings like games do. I could choose to do manual gear changes and mswza could choose the auto setting.
Quite a lot of automatics
Let you switch between full and semi-auto (sequential manual - like on games), don't they?
my passat does this
never fails to make me think i am playing sega rally 2.
I fully didn't mean to this^ my own post, and now I look like a twat.
it's all about the connection madenin the brain
that makes you bot think you are turning a wheel that turs a lever that turns the wheels that then turns the car, but instead the tool response mean your brain connects all the dots simultaneously, subconciously, and this makes turning and controlling the car utterly inate once taught.
the reason a wheel and levers are used is because when cars were first made this was the mechnical way to do it. there are few reasons to change it now that it is so standard.
I saw recently that Toyota (or Nissan)
Are building a 'fly by wire' car. Where its all electronic, rather than mechanical, like an Airbus plane (still has a wheel though, not a joystick)
Yeah, I don't expect it to change
it was more of a 'if they were designed now' thought.
nah
GRANDPA YOU'RE GOING AT 20MPH
It makes money
So the government/corporations would endorse it no matter the risk to public health. Such is the world.
They'd wait for it to become computer-controlled
can't there be a thing where you ride your bike round the city
and if you want to go to a different city you ride your bike on a thing that's a bit like a ski lift except it just drags you through the fields where the M62 used to be?