Connected/Automated vehicles and infrastructure in Boston

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
1,855
Reaction score
655
It is also another platform to hoover all your data from.

Absolutely. We are already trending to be the reverse side of baseball cards. We are walking individual stats and will continue to be more and more in the future. I'm uncomfortable with that as the next person, but it is what it is.
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
1,855
Reaction score
655
All the stories you share are about technology. My argument has always been about policy.
The technology is becoming so overwhelming and will be so much in use by then, that it would be impossible for "policy" to preserve the buggy whip. The "policy" concerns are based on the liability issues from the current shortcomings of the safety technology. That is evolving.

Policy is NOT a constant. It evolves also. Hell, as a US federal POLICY , just over 5 years ago, how many gay couples could legally marry? How many could actually visit their spouse in a hospital? How many could legally buy cannabis?

I fully agree the regulatory policies regarding this urban transportation evolution are not there NOW. But to say they cannot evolve over the next 15 years, where we've seen what's been achieved over the last 5, ignores reality.
 
Last edited:

stefal

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
927
Apple has been reportedly working on a secret car project for years. At least once a year, these reports come up of Apple having a self-driving car "on the horizon." They've had around 1,000 engineers working on this since 2015, with some of the top engineers in the industry being "secretly" recruited onto their teams, along with startup acquisitions, published papers, and the like. Whether this 2024 date is legitimate or not remains to be seen, but I'm continuously puzzled, without fail, every year, as to why Apple is trying to get in this game. It doesn't line up with any of their other products. It also won't have the same ROI impacts their current devices have, not even close - whether its an independently manufactured car or they partner with a manufacturer, starting a new car line is one of the most difficult things to do, period. They may have the money, but the engineering and logistics are seriously some of the hardest things to overcome, and for someone like Apple, who usually plays it safe and takes their time, it's not going to be any different. Tesla has had to work their employees to the ground to just stay alive, and they're the only 'new' auto manufacturer that has had success in this decade, new EV lines being promised from other manufacturers around for a century have underdelivered, been scaled back/delayed, or outright cancelled. Even if they do everything perfectly right and smooth, the payoff for them is still relatively small compared to iPhone/Mac margins.

They've also changed their tone on the not-so-secret-but-secret project several times. I recall Cook saying they weren't in the business of making [a car] to sell themselves, rather "focus on the autonomy aspect" and distribute the package to auto manufacturers. For a company with a reputation set in stone for having an obsession with the integration of hardware and software in their products, it boggles me why they would essentially make a third-party driving system for other manufacturers. That doesn't scream Apple at all. Apple is all about creating a lifestyle and need for their products, and if they're now in the business of making hidden software and hardware people take for granted, this is a big change for them.


The technology is becoming so overwhelming and will be so much in use by then, that it would be impossible for "policy" to preserve the buggy whip. The "policy" concerns are based on the liability issues from the current shortcomings of the safety technology. That is evolving.
Policy stems much further than liabilities and safety. New business models will form and will require regulation. We still debate/ignore the AirBnB issues that have been prevalent for several years. City planning and regional transportation are going to fundamentally shift, and we see how long it takes to get any kind of project going in Boston, private or public. Even if technology 'accelerates' that, none of it will go unchecked at any level. Just last summer, scooter rentals left cities in CA essentially shocked. LA's 311 system took in 1200 complaints or issues/reports related to the scooters in 9 days. The cities reacted by severely restricting how and where they are allowed to operate, and they have since died down, not really living up to the hype they had at first.

Policy is NOT a constant. It evolves also. Hell, as a US federal POLICY , just over 5 years ago, how many legally married gay couples could legally buy cannabis?
Those efforts took much longer than 5 years to get put into place. Our policy makers can barely pass a bill, looking at the news today. They also embarrassingly fail to understand technology at its basic level. Giving this Congress, with an average age of 62, 10 years to fully understand, adopt, and develop policy around something that doesn't really exist today is pretty optimistic.
 

George_Apley

Not a Brahmin
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
4,943
Reaction score
1,384
The technology is becoming so overwhelming and will be so much in use by then, that it would be impossible for "policy" to preserve the buggy whip. The "policy" concerns are based on the liability issues from the current shortcomings of the safety technology. That is evolving.
Policy is way bigger than liability. I'm talking about authoritarian use of policy to exclude non-AV's.

Policy is NOT a constant. It evolves also. Hell, as a US federal POLICY , just over 5 years ago, how many gay couples could legally marry? How many could actually visit their spouse in a hospital? How many could legally buy cannabis?
You seem to think I don't know what policy is or how policy-making works. You're wrong.

I fully agree the regulatory policies regarding this urban transportation evolution are not there NOW. But to say they cannot evolve over the next 15 years, where we've seen what's been achieved over the last 5, ignores reality.
I've never said that they can't evolve within 15 years. I don't think they will evolve to accomplish the urban AV exclusive zones that you've perpetuated in that timeframe. You are the king of willful strawman arguments.
 

ra84970

Active Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
169
Reaction score
120
The technology is becoming so overwhelming and will be so much in use by then, that it would be impossible for "policy" to preserve the buggy whip. The "policy" concerns are based on the liability issues from the current shortcomings of the safety technology. That is evolving.

Policy is NOT a constant. It evolves also. Hell, as a US federal POLICY , just over 5 years ago, how many gay couples could legally marry? How many could actually visit their spouse in a hospital? How many could legally buy cannabis?

I fully agree the regulatory policies regarding this urban transportation evolution are not there NOW. But to say they cannot evolve over the next 15 years, where we've seen what's been achieved over the last 5, ignores reality.
YIKES! As if it didn't take a long-running campaign for the past 20+ years which included a stop at Mormons funding the defeat of marriage equality in CA in 2008 with the passage of Prop 8, SCOTUS flirtations with a decision, and many many many political efforts - including a full-court press by the white gay & lesbian advocacy groups using strategies ranging from fundraising, pressure campaigns, social marketing "NO H8" selfies, and on and on, to *only* achieve a SCOTUS decision mandating marriage equality and doesn't still achieve other civil rights protections, including protections against labor discrimination, for single LGBTQ+ people, unmarried LGBTQ+ couples, or non-monogamous non-coupled LGBTQ+ partners.

Cannabis is still illegal at the federal level and legalization has been a state and national campaign since the mid-1990s when white people got the idea that they could make money "legally" on cannabis and started winning "medicinal"-use policy victories.
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
1,855
Reaction score
655
Policy is way bigger than liability. I'm talking about authoritarian use of policy to exclude non-AV's.



You seem to think I don't know what policy is or how policy-making works. You're wrong.



I've never said that they can't evolve within 15 years. I don't think they will evolve to accomplish the urban AV exclusive zones that you've perpetuated in that timeframe. You are the king of willful strawman arguments.
The problem is this repetition of the mantra of "policy" as a universal ...... as if every city manager across the globe operates like a Massachusetts bureaucrat.

For the Umpteeth time, George, I have consistently stated that: by 2035 there will be several global cities with inner zones that are AV only. It is up to Boston's political/bureacratic classes whether this city is one of them or looking in from the outside.

That's it. I'm not sure why you are so worked up about the subject that you resort to lowering the discussion to making personal attacks with "You are the king of willful strawman arguments." What I put there, above, in italics for you is objectively clear, concise and to the point.

The technology will be there. The delta is where Boston/MA politicians and managers will be in 15 years. Your opinion on the latter is duly noted, George.
 
Last edited:

jass

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Reaction score
283
My favorite part about our SDC future.

"Car, take me to Burger King"
"I understand you want to go to Burger King. However, MCDONALDS is offering you 10% off! Would you rather to go McDonalds?"
"No car, take me to Burger King"
"Ok. Please say 'I decline the 10% off McDonalds offer' to continue"
 

fattony

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
173
My favorite part about our SDC future.

"Car, take me to Burger King"
"I understand you want to go to Burger King. However, MCDONALDS is offering you 10% off! Would you rather to go McDonalds?"
"No car, take me to Burger King"
"Ok. Please say 'I decline the 10% off McDonalds offer' to continue"
Yes, but can we get it to hike your health insurance premium earthier way?
/snark
 

bakgwailo

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
1,031
Reaction score
102
My favorite part about our SDC future.

"Car, take me to Burger King"
"I understand you want to go to Burger King. However, MCDONALDS is offering you 10% off! Would you rather to go McDonalds?"
"No car, take me to Burger King"
"Ok. Please say 'I decline the 10% off McDonalds offer' to continue"
I'd pay for:

"I'm sorry, Dave, but I can't do that. According to our agreement on your diet, I am taking you to the closest sweetgreens".
 
Last edited:

JeffDowntown

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,250
Reaction score
454
My favorite part about our SDC future.

"Car, take me to Burger King"
"I understand you want to go to Burger King. However, MCDONALDS is offering you 10% off! Would you rather to go McDonalds?"
"No car, take me to Burger King"
"Ok. Please say 'I decline the 10% off McDonalds offer' to continue"
"I'm sorry, per the terms and conditions of your ride agreement (see section 39.23b5) your ride is partially funded by our sponsors. If you choose to continue to Burger King, your new fare will be..."
 

Top