The future: "Honey, let's go, we're late for our Starship Earth to Earth flight to LA!" "I know dear, I'm trying to reboot the car, but it keeps throwing an error."
On the Starship: "Dear passengers, due to unfavorable surface weather conditions we'll be landing in Shanghai instead of Los Angeles. We apologize for the inconvenience."
Yeah I never liked this video from CGP Grey, but it really confused me, because he lives in London, and in a recent video, he said he hadn't driven in almost a decade. So he walks everywhere and takes public transit regularly, but still somehow makes a video about how to make cities incredibly shitty for pedestrians. Weird.
Revisionist history did a podcast about Waymo and Pedestrian. Their conclusion is that once every car is autonomous, pedestrian will be able to stop traffic because autonomous cars will not want to hit them. Waymo slows down and stops as soon as there's a pedestrian that might cross its path even if it's not at an intersection.
@@TereniaDelamay yeah I heard this too! I think the underrated answer to this is that there's the world where we basically end car travel, and there's the world where we use physical barriers and police enforcement to ensure pedestrian-free roads. I am worried that those with legal and legislative power will produce the latter
I love how a lot of the travel infrastructure videos on your channel is just “This is less efficient than a train, let’s improve it, whoops it’s a train” and i love it, it always leads back to trains
It reminds me about an experiment from USSR. In 1950s when new cities were built, some architects have decided to fix traffic. They have spent few years and a lot of money to test different approaches like building extra roads, separating cars from pedestrians, using "green wave" lights (that one was implemented in Moscow, St Petersburg, Almaty and other big cities) etc. but ended up with conclusion that the most efficient way of organising traffic are trams. They have calculated that just one correctly placed tramway can replace roughly 5 lanes.
I live in germany. I live 5 minutes of walking from the closest grocery store. 2 Minutes from the closest clothing store. 5 Minutes to my Doctor 5 Minutes to a trainstation for internal or external routes 5 Minutes to multiple fast food joints or restaurants I dont even need a bike or public transport to reach 90% of my destinations in day to day life
My family doctor is across town, because when I signed up that's where I lived and their office hasn't moved, but everything else is the same. Montreal
its so funny how cgp writhes around trains using language like "a connected set of cars that move in unison" and didnt think of a fucking train. tech bros are incredible
Carcinization does not mean that most sea creatures evolve into a crab like form, it only applies to non crab like crustaceans (and even then it's not a guaranteed process as there are advantages to being more shrimp/lobster like, and sometimes even the opposite can happen, where a crab like crustacean evolves into a less crab like body)
I like this idea. just put people in those giant inflatable balls that you can bounce in and stuff and just throw it against a wall or into a net and then open the door to climb out. it works perfectly.
I visited London once, I liked using transit there. Someone told me a good bus technique there: jump on a bus that's going the direction you want to go, and just get off if it starts to go a direction you don't want to go. That worked well, there were buses everywhere we were going.
@Itisshoe the waiting list for treatment in the UK is roughly seven million. A simple Google search will highlight the horror of the situation. I hope those who might go blind are treated... :(
When I visited London with a class in college we were on the tube once, talking to some locals. They were talking about how they hate the tube, and how inefficient it is and asked us "Is the US MTU this bad?" We all had to laugh our asses off, and explain that we don't have mass transit in most cities, and what we do in larger cities is borderline useless.
I find it incredibly hard to believe you found Southermers who were willing to talk to you lmao. The people in the south of England tend to be much less willing to talk to strangers than us Northern lot
London tube system has 1 huge issue. Its old as F and kinda hold the city hostage while I think its more and more hard to maintain thanks to the fact it just can't stop for that.
@@Paco1337 Sure, but some people just prefer to drive (not me, I ride a bike). They wouldn't switch unless you make driving way more uncomfortable. And that would be mean. At least from a contemporary point of view. I for once really don't like to sit in a train. It's like (unattractive) people touching my genitals.
@@Paco1337 but here’s the thing it’s incredibly easy to F with train tracks not to mention how you would have to wait for one train to make around the number of 900 or more stops because not everyone can or wants to walk every where . Both trains and cars have down sides but it’s easy we to stop in front of where you want to go than having to walk there after 20 to 30 mins of waiting for everyone to get on the train . In order to make this work you would have to change how people think about personal transportation in order to not make this a waste of money .
@@wassollderscheiss33 I mean, we spent decades absolutely wrecking our cities to make them more convenient for drivers at the expense of everybody else. I don't think a course-correction in the opposite direction would be "mean", it's just a return to sanity.
in self driving dystopia you wouldn't even need to hack the cars to cause chaos, jamming or spoofing the sensors would be nearly as effective and much lower effort.
Ironically enough, Grey is not a car-driver, in one of his Tesla Vlogs he mentions that he did not drive for years after an accident and if you listen to his podcasts, he mentions that he actually isn't allowed to drive in his current home country of England. His main means of transportation are indeed public transportation and a bike.
@@Anonymous-df8it Probably never got licensed in the UK. You can only drive on a foreign license for the first 6 months or so of your residency and you have to get licensed if you want to continue driving there beyond that. And US driver's licenses are painfully underaccepted in other countries, i.e. you can't simply exchange your US license for a local one. You're forced to take all the tests.
honestly I foresee both eventually happening. Well, trains are already very common in places that aren't managed by insane people. But, self-driving cars are just eventually going to become normal as the last leg of a journey. trains are awesome, but there are always lots of areas where trains can't reach. and people don't want to walk. People already cover this leg of their journey with normal cars, and if they could, most people would press a button and let their car drive them. Or, even better, we could have an uber-style system so nobody has to spend a ton of money on owning a car.
@@Nerobyrne Yeah. Though instead of self-driving cars, I think hybrids would be better. Technology isn't perfect, so it's always better to have a backup in case of emergency. Cars are great, but they don't belong in the city.
Great accept I don't have access to public transportation and walking 2 hours to work and 2 hours back is not an option. A bicycle is viable but too dangerous because then I'd either be forced to share the road with drunk maniacs going 80+ miles per hour on the road or go into the woods slushing in puddles. Public transportation is about as accessible as the moon for the average American.
@@petelee2477 the solution isn't telling everyone to not drive and take public transit, but to improve public transit and make it viable so that you are able to make the choice and have it be an actual smart choice
ich war letzten oktober in texas, wollte whataburger probieren und dachte mir ich geh zu fuß „sind ja nur 2km“. bin vom airbnb losgegangen, es gab kaum bürgersteige und habe mehr als eine stunde gebraucht. und ich war nicht irgendwo in der wüste, ich war 10km von austin entfernt in round rock.
The European mindset in this video is extremely obvious. Look at it this way, you can do daily errands with minor inconvenience (parking spaces, traffic, etc) or you can pay with time (waiting for the bus/train). You are from Germany, how often is the bus and train reliable?! The amount of times that I've called my boss and said "bus number 1 was late, I missed my connection, I will be late" is ridiculous.
@@rareram The reliability of public transportation in Europe is still better than in the USA, and the ability to walk to the most important places in a city is still something to be considered. I don't really get your point?
@@ShotofDespresso a country that relies on public transportation is easier to disrupt than one that has citizens who have their own method of travel. For example the country wide mass strike of the train, air, and bus workers did result in a peaceful day. I saw a lot less people at work. No plane noises overhead. I agree that public transportation around a city is a good idea. But you have to realize that this video is proposing a blanket solution and the creator is saying that they don't care who is affected negatively. That's a very irresponsible way to attempt to change things. In the usa people like to live in the vast region that they have. In Europe space is a very limited resource... So population is a bit more compact in general. I feel like I'm rambling, but I guess my point is that both videos are a bad solution to the problem. Solutions need to be more specific to each region.
We just need a total overhaul of cities to include pedestrian arch bridges every 300 feet but, in practice, because of tight budgets, more like every 300 in commercial and upper income areas and every few miles in low income areas. Win-win.
The cars would stop. The point CGP Grey made is that humans driving cars stopping anywhere when a pedestrian crosses is unsafe and inefficient but self driving cars will be able to do it. So in theory a pedestrian could cross any time any where. Adam is strawmanning CGP Grey here by using a slippery slope into grade separation for pedestrians when nowhere did CGP Grey actually suggest that. Especially given that he a pedestrian living in London who doesn't own a car.
That's really not a hard problem to solve. Have you ever used a cross walk with a button you press when you want to cross? Just have that alert the self driving cars that someone is crossing, and they can stop. And you can allow the same gap in the traffic to allow people at intersections to cross the road as the gap gets to them. So one gap in traffic allows everyone in that direction down the street to cross as the gap gets to them. BUT, none of this is the real solution. All he did here was go one level deeper, from "There are too many cars" to "increase density and make things walkable", which isn't really getting to the fundamental issue. The issue is there are just too many people, and promoting increased density is exactly the wrong thing, as that means there will be even more people. It's the same stupid argument that he's disproving, but just replace "too many cars" with "too many people". If you look at the population of any other species, is it continually increasing all the time? No. But with people it is. So why just go one level deeper, and kick the can further down the road, rather than address the real problem.
Buttons to alert nearby cars sounds great on paper but that's a much harder idea to implement than you realize. A fully automated interconnected highway system is simply not scalable, having millions of independent vehicles means way too many failure points.
I mean, he did fix traffic, he just stopped everything else, its like telling an ai to optimise something without setting perametres, eventually it will see that the most logical option is to sacrifice everything surrounding that to create an optimal solution
I think people are looking way past his video and think he ever claims everything else must be removed. He was just simplifying things for the sake of the explanation of cars on roads. Not everyone demands literally everything to be explains that's ever slightly relates to 1 small subject. Making short video's forever impossible
@@tardvandecluntproductions1278 the intersection he shows in the video is literally impossible for a pedestrian to traverse. His idea bans pedestrians from the road implicitly.
@White wolf That's the big problem with city planners nowadays. Cars need to be more expensive and roads more clogged so that people are forced not to use them? It's not really their job to force something on people that they don't want...
@White wolf except everyone does not prefers cars. Do you want to move from A to B listening to your music? Headphones and smartphones. Do you want the right temperature inside your transportation?? A/C in buses and trains. Do you not want to walk too much from vehicles to your home?? Good public tranportation planning and not live in a copy/paste suburb. Etc.
@@quiquencio5744 It's a very small percentage though that really prefers it. Most only use public transport out of necessity, because they can't afford anything else.
Man i feel heard seeing some pictures are in the philippines, road/lane expansion (for a lack of a better term) here are becoming more and more rampant because the local government pushes for car centric roads despite being a third world country, where common folk don't have the fortune to afford housing with garages, and instead are forced to loan cars and park them at the streets, causing it to be more congested. the sidewalks are also getting smaller and smaller (some along the major avenue here is only sized the width of a person) everything was at least better back then, where almost everything can be reached by commute through means of public transport. as time progresses, things get worse because of the aforementioned paragraph, and it's sad to see that means of public transport gets worse despite it being a huge part of our culture. there are many layers to this, but yeah
That's so true. Vehicle's here are rampant on the road. The problem that the Philippine government does not want to solve is the volume of cars on the road. In fact, some houses have 2 or more cars on their garage being used or not (or used to avoid coding). Our transport system is even shit, road system is shit that is why people are being forced to buy more cars than go on a commute. Ngl, if our transport system in our country was well developed, where's jeepneys, busses, and tricycles are more systemized, then I would rather use my car to travel to provinces than scramble with other cars here in Manila. There's just too much cars (private vehicles specifically) here in the Philippines, especially in Manila. Edited: much better if there will be trains like ktx in Korea, and bullet train in Japan to travel in provinces than use a car.
Philippines? The dipshits now are using Ebikes to slow down traffic, making the road more hazardous than usual by counterflowing, turning whenever they want, and not obeying stoplights because they can get away with it
One of my fondest memories of being in the Phillipines are the jeepneys. Busses, but better. Do they still drive where you live, and are you positive about them as well? To me I always have this utopian feel when I think of them because they seem to be so efficient, cheap, community oriented and.. fun.
I think the real solution is to find a way to get pedestrians from point A to B safely so the traffic can flow more freely. I propose using 1-4 person levitating hyper pods, with stations all over the city. Seems super efficient and practical to me.
@@brokkrep A simpler solution? Just a regular bicycle. Why? Becaue: 1. Fights america's biggest health problem, obesity 2. It's fun 3. Really cheap 4. Can be used by 3 year olds - no cars = no danger when crossing a non-existent road 5. Fast on short distances, sustaiable on long trips 6. Works on almost any type of terrain
@@michakrzyzanowski8554 I commute by bicycle for at least two years now. You're right, but hilly terrain makes it hard to not be exhausted at arrival at work
Thing about CGP Grey is he lives in London and doesn’t even own a car. He lives his life as a consumer of public transit! He’s not actually car brained, I think he just likes technology.
Yeah, I also chuckled when he assumed that CGP wouldn't be able to "imagine his life without motorization". Have you seen his Las Vegas vlogs? Oh, how he hated having to drive everywhere.
CGP is a science teacher. His favourite ideas will all work just great, for spherical cows in a vacuum. Just wish someone would forcefeed him Strong Towns, but he intentionally avoids consuming content too close to his own niche, so he hasn't experienced the joy of Map Men Map Men Map Map Map Men Men Men. Men.
I live in Oregon, I walk to our local grocery store twice a week. To get there I get the whole American car experience. I first cross a highway with no crosswalks where I need to cross. Then walk down a road with no sidewalks, cross a painful intersection that I think could be a roundabout. After that I walk to a plaza cut in half by a road that's hard to cross. All of that, twice, per trip.
@@zacheryeckard3051 In a lot of rural and suburban areas, it's safer to be a pedestrian than a cyclist. On a bike, drivers will pass you with little to no clearance, turn directly into your path because they weren't looking out for bikes, or just scream at you to get off the road. At least as a pedestrian you're separate from traffic.
@@zacheryeckard3051 While technically true, it's also a driver's mentality. A pedestrian is something that is not a vehicle, and so will be seen. A bike or cycle is a vehicle, and so must simply mind its own business or doesn't exist to the driver. Shitty I know, and should be changed, but that is the way it works.
Tbh, you don't need a hacker to screw up and cause deaths at these intersections. The problem these guys can't get through their heads, is that glitches and programing errors will always exist, and a situation where no room for error exists, like what is depicted, is going to be awful.
Yet somehow safe and efficient automated train and transit systems already exist and are heavily relied upon in many places all over the world now. It's naïve to think that the technology won't continue to improve, evolve and be incorporated into even more complex systems in the future.
An automated train has a predetermined path it follows. Pretty much every part of its evironment is known ahead of time and doesn't change. The train can only move along the track. A car, though, has to deal with movement in 2 dimensions and has to do it in an environment with tons outside variables that all regularly change. The complexity is really not comparable.
@@patrickherke8947 Like I said, it' naïve to think that technology won't continue to improve and evolve to the point where it can deal with more complex systems in the future. Once upon a time people didn't believe automated trains were possible either. Heck even planes can entirely fly and land themselves these days if they have to and they operate in 3 dimensions nevermind 2 lol. Automated vehicles are coming it's just a question of when, not if.
@@vejet Both planes and trains still have accidents, even when they're auto-piloted. Now imagine there still being millions of auto-pilot cars on the roads at once, that's millions more possible accidents.
@@vejet if you want that kind of security that you have with trains, you would need to restrict self driving to certain routes along certain paths that never change. You couldnt stop along the way as it would interrupt the flow, you also couldnt just take an exit, the exit would need to be planned ahead of time. Miles ahead of time. What if we made it even more efficient and offered a sort of "catch a ride" system along side that? People who want to get to a certain destination could meet up beforehand, get into a car together. Maybe we can even sort those cars so the ones going into the same direction all take the exist one after the other, that way we would reduce the potential risk of catastrophic failure to merge AND we could even use that information to plan ahead of time so when 10 cars leave the path at an intersection, 10 miles down the line another group "knows" that a free space on the path is going to come along in a couple minutes. Speaking of failure, we can increase the reliability of our network if we hardlink all the cars that go to the same destination together, that way one can run out of battery or experience a failure in the drive system without breaking down and grinding the network to a halt. All of this requires a lot of computing time and requires quite exact timing, maybe we could make it so you have a predetermined time of depature, that way you can even plan around a time to leave when going for a little urban exploration session in the city youre visiting. Along the predetermined paths we could also install a different sort of ground and use different wheels to reduce rolling resistance, increasing the range while reducing maintenance and wear of our cars. Wait a minute. I think i accidentally optimized our car system into a train network again. DAMMIT! >Heck even planes can entirely fly and land themselves these days if they have to and they operate in 3 dimensions nevermind 2 lol. If youve ever seen how Planes operate, youre gonna be really surprised. They fly along "corridors", which is airspace thats designated to civilian travel AND designated to certain directions. They have a height, width and length and what youre really doing is getting a plane on a course to insec into one of those corridors. Essentially, planes are trains with a higher energy usage but less dependancy on land based tracks. Thats why they are usually used for long range only.
As someone who loves driving cars, I fully agree with you. Cities belong to pedestrians and public transport, not cars. But living in the countryside it is not possible to live without one, except you want to take a three hour bus ride to just visit a friend who you could easily reach in 20 minutes by car. So get rid of the cars in cities where they are incredibly inefficient due to having to de- and accelerate all the time and public transport is cheaper and faster and just use them in the countryside!
Agreed! Maybe cars aren't as needed in most of western and central Europe but big countries can't really afford super quick public transportation that connects something in the middle of nowhere to everything else every 15/30 minutes. It's just impossible.
@@MaryamMaqdisi That's unfortunately the result of suburbs and how expanded everything is built. European countries are much more compact, the distances are much smaller. For example, take Houston, which is 1,722 km² and has 2.3 million citizens. Now how large do you think Paris is, with 2.1 million citizens? It's 105.4 km². Houston is *sixteen times* larger than Paris. Not double, not triple, not tenfold but sixteen times larger. No wonder they have traffic issues, everything is sprawled out *way* too far apart. And this goes for a lot of not most US cities due to their rules of single family homes being build and banning any other type of building. And this means every single thing is spread further out. The garbage truck needs to drive further, your power lines are longer, the streets need more asphalt, your need more gas for the distance, delivery takes much longer, your trips to anything takes longer... TLDR it's extra difficult now to fix because of how the cities were build. But it's not impossible, but it requires some changes. And to forbid anything other than single family homes needs to go first.
If bus travel on same route on same road takes 9 times longer, you should take a closer look what the fuck is happening here. To get from my home to uni on PT it takes 50-55 minutes, on car - 40-65 minites. And that's not a direct route on PT.
San Francisco is theoretically livable mainly because it is car unfriendly; it's just that the city government is incompetent at dealing with crime, homelessness, and cleanliness. Tough luck for everyone there. Hopefully, things will change soon.
I live in a part of the city that’s pretty walkable. More cars than I would like, and when the streets were closed to cars during a street festival this summer it was absolutely amazing. But it’s a pretty walkable city and the public transit is at least decent (kinda). Still unlivable though because the rent is too damn high
@@beevins99 The public transit is decent in the sense that there's almost always a line going to where you want to go, at least inside the city limits. The public transit is super terrible if you have any kind of time schedule and desire a reliable mode of transportation. The number of times I've been stuck waiting for 45 minutes when the next bus was 10 minutes away on a 15 minute bus schedule is too high to count. This is worse when you realize that many of these trips were started at the bus terminus, which was about 3 blocks from the bus storage yard, and no buses showed up at all in that time, except one which said it was the next bus to leave but stayed until after I had finally left on a different bus that showed up. I know this sounds like a singular incident; this has happened to me on over a dozen occasions, but at least those were after work. When it happens before work and the bus is on a 30+ minute schedule...and then the bus that shows up is actually for the cycle after next...RIP work. The city is pretty walkable, if you like hills and have lots of time and everything you need is close by and you never go grocery shopping for more than maybe 2 or 3 bags at once. At least everything is close. I give it that. Of course, living in the more central parts of town mean you're also closer to the heavier crime areas...Not sure how much that's worth it, to be honest.
I have a city planning concept I call the “broken foot”: basically you imagine that several people of common ability want to move across the city together. All of them have one or more broken feet (back paws for my dog readers). However they are not all moving the same way, some have wheelchairs, some crutches, some are being supported by another human. The city needs to be set up so that this team of broken foot’s can get anywhere they need or would reasonably be expected to want to go. You next move on to hearing, vision, sensory problems, and intellectual disabilities. If a child can’t navigate the city, it’s built wrong. They should be able to get from home, to school, to the arcade, to playgrounds, and medical centers.
"If a child can’t navigate the city, it’s built wrong." - exactly this. As a kid and a teen, I used to travel a lot around the city I lived in. In a lot of cases, I could navigate around most of the city, using only foot and metro, under 10 minutes walk from the stations. In some cases, I needed public transit and it was awful. Also, metro is a horribly expensive solution but will work if your metro area is over 3+ millions, I believe. We had around 15 and over 20 now. What I like about Tbilisi, for example, is that their bus stations and lanes are very neatly organised and tightly run. You won't even need metro in a lot of cases. However, it can still be improved, it's a great deal better than Yerevan one, for example, and IMO better than Saint-Petersburg, too. However metro and cars both have one significant pros over most of the buses I encounter: easy visibility. It's weird, but it is really hard to find an actual scheme of buses overlaid on city streets. It's always just a list of numbers that don't tell you anything. You can easily trace the road you have to walk, cycle, drive, or take on a metro, to see how to get to your destination, even without entering the start and end of your destination. Not the case with most other ways of public transit!
That sounds like thinnest-skinned man engineering. No, engineer around a reasonable scope of ability and everyone else can make the personal adjustments they need to get around it.
As someone who has lived in Texas their entire life you’re absolutely right. Pretty much every major city has a malicious anti-pedestrian mindset where cities like Arlington are proud of the fact they don’t even have any bus routes
Can trains go to a persons house, can a train prevent people from getting diseases like covid because its public transportation. Can trains be built at everty corner of a cntenent that would otherwise be used as a highway. Automatic cars solve these problems and pedestrains wouldnt even be a problem since people can use ai cars like Uber wihtout the need of a driver.
As an American: I understand CGP Grey's viewpoint here. We totally worship the car, and I see the negative effects of that. As a software engineer: Encryption isn't really an answer to the problem of infrastructure being hacked. Current encryption, when properly used, is already unbreakable even by the best super computers. So if encryption was the answer, we'd already be hack free.
It’s absolutely true that encryption is probably gonna be fine for a while, but how much can we trust auto makers on fixing vulnerabilities and actually use encryption properly 😂😂😂
Quantum computers cannot nilly willy break encryption. There exists encryption resistant to quantum computers - even public key schemes. I don't disagree with your video, it is on point. However, hacking almost never happens because encryption gets broken, but rather because errors are made while implementing encryption.
Adam criticises CGP for making a video about a topic he doesn't understand and then happily starts talking about something he doesn't understand himself lol. I agree that train good and car bad, but the part about cryptography is just plain wrong.
Most common entry is human access for hacking, hacking really is the wrong word tbh. Only a college level example but as a lesson we were asked to try and rip data from a specific network. We got a lot further as we had figured at a password theme that was being used and got admin access. Turns out last name + dob is terrible passwords.
I’ll be honest, before I watched Adam and saw Grey’s video, and thought it was an amazing solution, it took me watching adams videos to actually figure out that I was just so ingrained into the car world, that just getting rid of the cars never crossed my mind. I’m glad that I realized the error with that view.
It's understandable if you don't experience the alternatives. If you grow up in a car-centric environment, of course that's your first pick. It's what you know. And it might feel really odd for many people when you take away the one thing they know. "Then how the f do we get around?" It's hard to imagine when you never got to experience any alternative as a bus, train, tram, metro, bicycle, scooter, e-bike, even boat, or just the ability to walk. It won't cross your mind, because you never did any of that. I totally get it how it got this way.
It is location dependent. If you think it's possible to change all towns and villages over to public transport you simply have no perspective outside an urban environment. It then gets trickier to public transportize when you need people to transit from a rural area to an urban area. Hundreds of millions of people live more than 50 miles from a town with 50,000+ people, public transit is literally impossible in an economic way for them.
According to 2020 census, the 214,032,675 Americans live in 58 metropolitan areas each with population of at least 1 million. "Hundreds of millions of people live more than 50 miles from a town with 50,000+ people," is simply false.
@@fatviscount6562 Oh my bad, it was only a single hundred million people. Or maybe you could extrapolate that down to a few dozen million people. That changes everything, it is suddenly possible for those millions of people to have fast or effective public transportation! (that is sarcasm) And regardless, the way that American cities are laid out means that simply being within a metropolitan area does not guarantee that you are within a reasonable distance of the resources you need on a daily basis. Before you could even argue that it would be possible, I would first need to even know how "metropolitan" is defined from wherever you pulled that data.
@@eewweeppkk MSA and CSA are official US Census Data, with precise definitions. Your comment implied that transit is impossible in most of America, when the reverse is true: that well over 2/3 of Americans live in dense enough places to warrant good transit in the rest of the world, yet in the US have nonexistent to abysmal transit.
@@spacedoohicky But a train is a line of cars... ok depending on the type of train it may have an engine. But the trains I drive consist only of cars, that are in a line and accelerate at the same time.
@@ssingfo Trains also pull hoppers, flat beds, containers, stacks of containers, refrigerators, and fluid tanks. And in the definition of "train" each vehicle is connected, and travels on a rail system. Sometimes trains even pull a rack of cars (motor vehicles). But in the definition there are more loose meanings of alt-definitions of "train" that actually does stand for "a line of people", but then Adam Something's joke doesn't work because the equivocation leads to even more confusing references like "gear trains", and a "train" on a wedding gown. So in a metaphorical way Adam is correct in calling it a train, but it's virtually meaningless as a joke because it is a confusing metaphor. Also there's a video showing what in China is being called, an "innovative" "virtual rail train" which everyone is making fun of because in England they have the exact same transport which they call a bus which is a series of buslike cars connected in series. People were saying, "That's a bus. LOL.", or "That's not a train. It's a bus. LOL." which gives the impression that even if the cars are connected in series, going the same speed, that isn't always technically a train, except maybe metaphorically. But further the joke doesn't work because a series of automated cars wouldn't just follow each other, but could also split off at any turn which breaks the definition of train absolutely. It's just a really bad joke.
@@spacedoohicky You do know that there is a general word for all those things, (hoppers, flat beds, carriages, etc.) that word is car. Therefore a train is always pulling cars. Unless its only an engine. Or do you want to tell me that my list of cars (a list refering to all the cars in a train) is wrong. Like I said, I'm a train driver, and I even drive trains only consisting of powered cars, no locomotive.
A funny thing about public transport is it helps drivers by getting cars off the road. The more people take the bus, bike lane, or rail system, the less auto traffic to clog up the freeway. Even people who commute entirely by car should be in favor of walkability measures and better public transportation because it will make their trip easier.
And buses, as public transport that uses the same roads, have more capacity than cars in the same volume. Rail transport has even more capacity, but also needs specialized driveways.
Exactly. I live in Europe and I heard people complain all the time about traffic jams in the city center at rush hours and I'm like, what do you mean? Unless there is a road renovation, at worst you're gonna stop for a minute at a red light and that's it. You will have enough time to easily pass after. Why? Because all of city center is well connected with massive buses on their own lanes and trams, and these travel absolutely packed. Where there actually are traffic jams is outskirts. Why? Because people who use those roads have to travel by car because they either go inter city, buses for which are more rare and less convenient to use, or don't have direct bus connection.
one huge problem of these proposed future where self driving cars all work together is compatibility. we can barely get electric car companies to agree to use the same chargers never mind have their driving ai perfectly communicate with eachother
And every car company would have access to all of that data, exactly where you are and where you're going every single day. Similar to phones, but essential to drive anywhere.
To be fair, at this moment in time there's only *one* current electric car brand that isn't conforming with the US's J1772 charging standard, and most electric car owners rib the hell out of them for it because proprietary equipment has, is, and always will be stupid.
what if we did self driving cars but they were all connected by physical bonds so they would all move it exactly the same time and oh right I’m talking about a train
My family has two cars, and I have always been surprised by how we hardly use them in comparison to public transport. I always use bus or train to get around, and thanks to the way my city has been designed. I live in the outer suburbs, and my family practically never uses cars; and if we lived in the inner city I can imagine we would never use them unless leaving the city.
Until I can move musical equipment around( bass amps, upright bass and tuba, I know awful instrument selection as a kid) I'll always need a car for even small trips for certain things, but try and not use it if things are walkable beucase minus highway night driving it ls just added stress to my day, no idea why people who need to lug around absolutely nothing would ever drive even a mod sized suv like mine, feels like a tank and it's just an old v6 highlander, can't imagine driving the V8 monster truck I park next to wt my apartment, and I've never even seen them have a front seat passenger lol
A note on the encryption part: we already use encryption so strong it takes 100s of years, but encryption doesn't stop exploits. Like, no matter how good the encryption is on self-driving cars, just emitting a lot of noise on the same frequency will take out their communication
As long as the systems fail safe, this is not an issue. If someone flashed a whole bunch of lights at you, you're likely to crash also. As always, there's an XKCD about this: xkcd.com/1958/
@@NickLilovich Am pretty sure flashing people without getting found out is far harder than just discreetly hiding an antenna somewhere that emits noise
I mean... What you're describing is literally a DoS attack, one of the most primitive types, and they really are not that hard to filter out. DDoS's are far more dangerous, but can still be countered by relatively simply Zero-Trust procedures that add virtually 0 lag time. So no, you can't just emit a lot of noise and cause cars to crash.
The entire infosec portion of this video is garbage. He thinks that ""encryption"" matters in this context - encryption isn't the fundamental problem. Even if you could break any encryption, you can't just send arbitrarily shit to cars to get them to do stuff since you lack the authn/authz required to make them obey you. And "quantum" as just an imaginary baddie of all crypto is hilarious. There already exist quantum-immune algos. They have existed since like 2010 or even earlier. Seriously, this video makes me doubt everything about this guy. What a goon.
@@TheDeathlyG Frequency jamming isn't a primitive or solved DoS type. It still works and there's no meaningful solution to it other than "stronger signals" - which is just an arms race against an attacker. No solution to that. DDoS doesn't even make sense in this scenario. And DDoS is just a subset of DoS that almost exclusively applies to network-layer DoSing. Tons of DoS attacks (particularly resource DoS) are still viable without any need to distribute them. This wannabe infosec comments section is almost as bad as the video.
The intersection without lights graphic he showed also was absolutely terrifying. 1 car makes 1 mistake and suddenly you have a really bad pileup and many many dead people.
Except it carries 15~50x more people than a car while only occupying the same space as 3 cars would. Not as good as a train, but way better than cars, and better at dealing with smaller, lower budget routes
@@adityaattri5414 That's the way we're heading. If you want to prevent automation, you'd have to put an end to capitalism, because it demands that we do whatever promises the most profit. If we don't want to put an end to capitalism, we better start about thinking how to deal with mass unemployment and the 'unemployability' of virtually everyone without a major in the STEM fields or art.
yeah absolutely, enough degenerates using public transport already so a longer drive and brisk walk is much more "eco friendly" if you catch my drift. maybe removing degenerates from our society and training out that behaviour will make public transport a lot more comfortable, and therefore, viable.
Hard agree with SomeEnglishDude. Hitler's main agenda was exactly that, removing "denegenerates" from society (which according to him were jews but also lots and lots of other people)
I don't understand how this is an effective argument. There are at least two solutions to this problem I can think of: 1. Where I live pedestrians can press a button when they want to cross a street and the traffic lights act accordingly. This idea can just as well be used to inform a network of self-driving cars. 2. Pedestrians could also use underground crossings which is as well already done nowadays.
It's simple. The pedestrian whips out his/her phone, opens an app, orders a ride share, gets in the car on one side of the intersection and gets out on the other.
"how, in the name of Christ, will a pedestrian cross this?" I just about *died* Clearly, of course, we create *self-driving pedestrians* that will automatically intersperse themselves with the traffic when crossing the intersection...
Meanwhile in Budapest. The previous mayor: "Increase capacity!" (More lanes for cars.) 45,5% support at election. The present mayor: "Decrease capacity!" (More lanes for bicycles, less lanes for cars.) 50% support at election. The mayor candidate who has no chance of winning: "Let urbanists do urban planning instead of politicians and lobbyists. Remove all private car traffic from city centre and give it back to pedestrians. Develop public transport to a level where people choose it instead of their cars." 4,5% support at election.
Develop public transport to a level where people choose it instead of their cars." 4,5% support at election. Well that sums up the issue. Some people will ALWAYS choose their cars, thus the promise is unfulfillable.
I think this is emblematic of the problem that people are instinctively weary of radical change. Even if you are selling what they want they will look for a half measure (see the Dems and Labor parties if the Anglo sphere)
@@regulate.artificer_g23.mdctlsk the Russian government is conspiring to decrease the efficiency of Budapest’s public transportation network by paying people to disagree with you in TH-cam comment sections be very afraid!
i never thought of it from this perspective - even if grey's video was trying to solve the problem, it was still doing it from the mindset that the road needs to be filled with cars from the beginning. we've had cars in the back of our minds, when trying to solve problems that cars cause, for years.
yep, and every time they mention adding lanes, I always think: why not make smaller cars? And we do, they are called bikes. And if you remove all cars and re-stripe the road, imagine how many bikes (bicycles and motorcycles) could go past? Except asking Americans to cycle is less effective then asking them to vaccinate against a deadly pandemic disease.
@@Krieghandt Well of course removing the drivers that are idiots from existence would solve more problems than just traffic. But if we were to make every car self-driving then those cars would become completely pointless since they're not transporting anyone. So the next best option is to remove the tool that the problem is being created with: the cars. I personally believe that personal cars should be limited to only people who are physically incapable of traveling by foot.
The reason there's so much support for cars and push-back against cuddly green solutions is that (for most people) car dependency is a given. It's been baked in by housing developments that make public transport impossible, by the separation of working living and shopping areas by car-demanding distances, and the fact that alternatives (if possible) aren't being provided.
There's a reason that houses a 45 minute drive from the city with no train infrastructure or nearby facilities, are cheap. They're vastly inferior. They should be nearly free for how much long term cost and time wasting they have baked right into them with travel time and expense. I'm not saying that we shouldn't build solutions to this problem - we should - but issue number 1 is that people don't recognize how stupid it is buying far from infrastructure, and how much it will impact them long term. A change in buyer habits would drive demand for more infrastructure and additional dense housing. Instead, we seem determined to urban-spawl our way from coast to coast, chasing that 'American* dream' of a house and land package - eliminating every inch of undeveloped pristine natural land along the way. *Substitute with your country as necessary, I'm not even from the US but it's pretty much the same car-centric design where I live.
I have family who lives an hour away from *anywhere* so yes, cars are a given. Because no one is making a train to go by their house. Not even considering the safety of waiting in your car instead of just outside for an hour because your timing was off. Or difficulty with carrying stuff. Is the train going to wait three hours because you nearly hurt yourself carrying your luggage out? Or had an emergency but already loaded stuff?
@@firstnamelastname9237 It's... generally safer to wait outside of your car than in it, because if you're in your car you're broadcasting that mugging you also nets them a CAR instead of just a wallet. At least in the US, where every criminal has easy access to guns and your flimsy metal car exterior isn't going to do shit to stop a bullet.
@@Dolthra I tried looking that up. Haven’t found that. Did find subway stations being dangerous though, which is exactly the situation of people being stuck outside their car because they’re relying on public transportation. Also a car mugging wouldn’t be a two for one. It’d be a much harder mugging which is more likely to get them caught since the person can just hit the gas and is in far less danger. While firearms are common in the us (and they could just build one potentially if not) it would still reduce the amount of people doing it, since not everyone can afford a gun (or steal one) in the first place. Wheras just standing around provides no protection.
You know I wasn't super into trains until I started watching this channel but now I am die hard for public transport with trains since you are correct, that for areas with high congesttion its great to move people to areas they want to go, and buses can fill in for less popular routes.
I would kill for every major city in the US to have convenient bullet trains like Japan, I just don't see it happening because this country is convinced that moonshot ideas like hyperloops and entirely software driven cars will fix everything.
also its like a 2 day thing just to drive from coast to coast…and thats just the us, it’s about a 3 day thing (and like 2 ferry rides) coast to coast in canada.
@@sevencents7 Yeah, it'd probably be more than 2 days for me lol. I can't drive that long straight through. When I'd arrive I would barely be able to walk from all the cramping.
Pretty much the only appeal of a shinkansen-style system in America is for people who are serious about the environment; the niche filled by bullet trains in Japan is already filled in America by commuter flights, and so the only use case for it is in cutting down on emissions from aircraft. Bullet trains are not commuter transportation in the sense of "commuting from the suburbs", they're commuter transportation in the sense of "commuting from another city 400 miles away". When you arrive in Chicago after leaving New York, whether it be by bullet train or commuter flight, your first stop is still going to be the Hertz Car Rental desk at the terminal you arrived at unless a slew of other changes are made which are entirely separate from the issue of America's ancient railway system. It'd do little in the way of reducing car usage. (But I would also kill for it, if only because it's a cool as hell moonshot idea, just like the hyperloop.)
(What America needs is either to completely redesign itself from the ground up and/or sprawling interconnected local transportation systems which make getting around once you arrive at your general destination easier, which is almost as impossible as the physics-defying absurdity of the originally proposed Hyperloop.)
The hyper loop is a legitimate thing, not just a moonshot idea. It’s not the best solution at the moment, as a LOT more infrastructure and money would have to go to hyper loops to allow them to be significant
To Grey’s credit, I started paying more attention to my spacing with other cars and I think it’s made a difference in my own contribution to bad traffic flow.
Watching your spacing is absolutely a solid thing to do as longa s you are stuck driving. It’s also significantly safer to just back TF off from the care ahead of you based on how much speed you have. I had a lot of work to do with my ex-husband and getting him to treat driving like the activity it really is: the single most dangerous activity a person will participate in during an average day. I also tend to favor space ahead over space behind me. I know other drivers suck, and giving myself extra space means I can slow down in more time, and kind of undo a bit of any traffic snake I run into… and another big consideration is that the greatest amount of delay you can run into is if you are involved in a collision yourself. Even if no one is hurt, and very little damage has been done, you’re going to have to be delayed and deal with the situation, rather than getting to where you wanted to go. Even in motorsports, “safe is fast”.
I live in Florida and we have the shittiest drivers on the east coast if not the entire US. There is no public driver's education in this state. People just learn to drive from people with bad habits and their environment of bad drivers around them. Attentive driving is rare, turn signals are rare, proper acceleration on an onramp to the flow of traffic is rare, observance of the concept of the passing lane is rare. Drivers are getting worse and worse and they are coddled by their new car's "safety" features of proximity alarms, auto braking, and 29 cameras, so they can spend more time on their cell phones while driving. Self driving cars has become an almost unavoidable solution in order to save idiots from themselves.
Just feel like pointing out that the pipeline hack itself didn't disable the pipeline, it disabled the company's billing system so they shut down service to avoid accidentally giving anybody free gasoline.
@@solaris9426 Yes, actually. Because firstly, a government controlled gas line would be far more secure than a privately owned one and would be less likely to be hacked in the first place. And secondly, the government wouldn’t shut off the gas line because it’s not the government’s goal to profit off of the gas line, because the taxes would have already been paid to use it.
@@jacobrzeszewski6527 What he said. Privatized infrastructure leads to neglected infrastructure, because to fulfill capitalism's goal of constant growth and profit, you need to invest the lowest feasible amount of money to make the biggest profit. If that means not updating the security system of one of the most important pipelines in the country to save money, so be it. If that means not renovating the electrical grid from the 50s or so to save money and de-coupling it from the surrounding states to de-regulate it even further, so that one single cold freeze in texas can utterly shut down large parts of a state that's almost as big as Germany and France combined and leave them without heating or running water - _so be it._ Oh, and guess what - as soon as electricity became a commodity, what did capitalism do? Drive up the price from 12 cents/ kwh to up to 9$/kwh. Not only did they not have elextricity, but those affected could now pay thousands in bills because the vultures in control of the grid saw a way to make more money off these people's misery. Apart from getting bled dry, hundreds of people died as a result of this btw, and they wouldn't have died if their most basic infrastructure wasn't privatized into oblivion.
@@magiv4205 It's also not true. They shut down lots of things, and it took a long time to get back running because the hackers might have broken stuff, and turning it on again without checking every facet would have caused irreversible damage.
For self driving cars to work, they would have to remove every single non-autonomous car from the streets and I have no idea how that is supposed to work.
Actually no, it does training them a lot harder but it's definitely possible, even if take a lot of time. When successful they will be better than your average human driver in the proper human driving environment, and, how CGP said, they don't have to be perfect, just have to be better than humans.
Tech enthusiasts: Welcome to my smart home, literally everything is voice activated Tech (particulary IT) workers: I have one thing in the house that fits the loosest definition of a robot, and that's this printer but I keep a hammer next to it so I can destroy it if it makes a noise I don't recognize
People say this, but I don’t think it’s true. I’ve heard of and know tech workers who are happily quite invested into smart homes and such. You’re right about printers though, absolutely no one trusts those bastards.
@@cjeam9199 I'm friends with a computer engineer at work and she has no socials, runs Linux on her smartphone to avoid being tracked by Google. The paranoia is real 😂
@@cjeam9199 I do software development because rent, but boy do I dislike computers. I feel like my coworkers are mixed, with some truly loving tech and buying into things like crypto currency and self driving cars, while most seem rather indifferent
@@benjacobs574 cause IT systems never break down, and everyone always has an internet connection. And even if you had mathematically optimized traffic you'd still have traffic....
@@benjacobs574 Not the most efficient one, just a more efficient one. Your GPS doesn't calculate the mathematically proven shortes route, but settles for a "good enough" solution. Now scale that up to thousands of selfdriven cars. We don't have the supercomputers to calculate that
@B J, well presumably they would be like separate carriages that can form trains when necessary but then easily split off to get to a different location.
It's not a very good angle to approach the concept of traffic to isolate the speed of cars in movement from every other aspect of the use of space, and the fact that the time a car spends moving is by far the minority of its life.
Would you sacrifice the comfort of a personal car for public transport? I wouldn't. Imagine carrying a f*ckton of bags with you, for example, when you are shopping by yourself. Not only will it be more problematic to carry all of them with you when you are getting on and off the bus/train/etc., but you will also be blamed by other people for taking too much space with your stupid bags. Car is freedom, public transport is not. It is actually a common theme with all these new and fancy solutions to transport and energy generation(i'm looking at you, wind turbines), they are great until you start looking deeper into details.
@@weatheranddarkness okay, if I have a personal train instead of car, I don't care. The point I was trying to make and the one you missed is that you need personal transport, not public. The way it works is a different story.
I'm not going to defend CGP Grey on his video (although the information part about how congestion happens is good - just not the solution), but he said himself that if he was doing the video today he probably would change a lot in this, because he isn't happy with this video and put way to much "belief" into self-driving cars. I'm paraphrasing of course.
@@Sentient_Blob Well - Veritasium even cited CGP's video i his last video. I know that CGP doesn't have time, but at this point he should write on how many mistakes there are.
This is because traffic is always growing because of globalization and concentration of capital. government are just desperately trying to catch up with capacity until the whole system just collapses and burns in blue flames
Make sure you add the right lanes. Biffa is the youtuber who does fix your city, if you haven't seen him, and he will regularly cut lanes on submitted cities after getting the turn lanes set right for the game AI.
@@deltaxcd But also because without heavy traffic, a car is more convenient for most people, and therefore a lot of people only take public transport if traffic is sufficiently bad. If you add capacity, the car gains an edge over public transport and people switch back to using cars, blocking up the roads again.
@@CFTim I highly doubt if traffic can get that bad to justify use of public transport which is not only inconvenient and slow but very overpriced too. And if you want to fight blocked roads rather than forcing people to use shitty public transport you should plan your city to eliminate the need to excessive transportation. it is extremely stupid city planning when you have long lines of cars moving to one direction in the morning and in another direction in the evening when this happens it is better to identify what is the the destination of all those cars and move that destination to the less busy place.
Oh, I can improve your idea. Give them a dedicated route where the only time they have to stop is when they're letting passengers off or taking passengers on, which allows them to move at high speeds through less populated areas.
Guys, guys listen. I was thinking, what about we also do that, but under the ground so it don't take space on the surface ? Just imagine how cool would this transport be!
Best way to solve traffic would be maximum and efficient Public transit like metros , trains and buses . We should be able to travel all around the city using public transit and should use bikes or walk for smaller distances
@@talkysassis most people where? The US has almost no feasible alternatives to driving yourself or at least being driven by someone else, and that's because these alternatives were phased out by auto industry lobbyists, not democracy. Look at any country in Europe and, while many still have high car ownership, their public transit is way better than that of North America, even in much poorer nations.
@@talkysassisthat’s definitely not why most people buy cars. Look at japan (where majority of japanese people own a car) or european cities, where still lots of people own cars (or have at least an access to a car from a family member, or use company car for personal use as well), but prefer to use public transport when possible. People who are irrationally afraid of being with another human being lets say on a bus or a metro are a minority. And for those, providing good public transport and bike infrastructure is beneficial, as it would take cars off the street of those drivers that in current circumstances have no option but to drive. After all, no one is proposing getting rid of roads altogether, how would fire trucks, police cars or ambulances get through? There are no fire bikes or trains. How would cars providing all sorts of business from delivery, to utilities, to taxis come through? We need roads and we need cars, even though for personal use most of the trips could be done more efficiently alternative. And then even few lunatics that for some strange reason don’t want to be on public transport or a bike might be happier at the end of the day, as roads would get less congested and trips faster
Nobody would actually want to do that. How much fun would it be to take a two hour commute every few days just for food? You're not carrying 30 lbs of groceries home on a bus, Public transportation isn't transportation, its a public commute service, because its not actually designed to move anything other than people. Its designed to get people to work, and then home; not make your life easier, but your boss's. This guy is pathetically out of touch, and so is everyone who advocates for public "transportation." Its garbage.
Nice, I also want the government to control whether I should be allowed to travel or where I should be allowed using their transport instead of being self-sufficient
@@acceptable1514 nice, i also want government controlling where i can take my car by building and maintaining highways (or not doing those). And I also want to stare at increasingly high gas prices as I submissively pump gas anyway because it is the only way I can stay afloat. And I also want to be referred to as self sufficient while I use privately pumped petroleum to power my car and am at a governments mercy roadwise as I zoom down residential roads. Just accept cars are bad, do I need to say why trains are good? Because I know trains have some of these problems, but only some.
@Brian Damaj I would agree if this channel was about rural planning and not urban planning. Cities are kind of his thing and public transport is very important and vastly underutilized. It's tongue in cheek if he ever made a reference to trains being the solution to everything. Also if you are in a rural area and have as many cars as some of the pictures in this video then maybe we do need to invent some kind of new public transport. Something like a big car that can stop at people's houses and pick them up.
6:18 The Colonial pipeline shutdown happened because of a ransomware attack on Colonial's very poorly protected invoicing and revenue network. Until it paid the ransom, Colonial was being denied any effective means of billing its customers so it shut down its pipeline rather than allow its customers to access its services without an invoice. No hackers went anywhere near the pipeline's network control infrastructure.
I looked it up out of curiosity - article named "Colonial Pipeline did pay ransom to hackers, sources now say." Love how all the politics surrounding the incident are "securing our energy supply from hacker attacks" and not "reconsidering the fact that entities with their own incentives control our energy in the first place." Also, the billion different slightly different CNN articles I sifted through are ALL weirdly reticent to state the objectively true fact that this was merely an attack on the billing system and not something that would actually force operation to stop. Like, each one that shows up when you look up "colonial pipeline ransomware" and each article linked within those articles (which they do prodigiously) insists on vaguely gesturing at an attack and not specifying the ugly truth.
I think it's sad that the solution to a problem that is basically "I'm too lazy to go to the light switch and press on it" is "Let's built a giant sever farm that requires a massive building and takes megawatts of power so I can connect my light switch and a microphone to it, such that I can turn my light on with my voice." It's ridiculous. Smart home has a place, but it's not your light switch, and it's not connecting it to the internet, and most certainly not without a physical backup. It's nice in a large office building, and when the porter notices that there is still a light on in room 561, he can turn it off from his booth instead of running up 5 flights of stairs. Or for automatic temperature control. Locally, not with a giant cloud server, wasting bandwidth and capacity.
Thats not at all the point. Flipping a light switch has never been a problem. The reason that technologies like that are made is because we know how to do it and that's cool as fuck. People need something to do, and alot of people love inventing and building and marveling at other inventions, just for its own sake. Ofcourse its ridiculous, it's not like we invent stuff because we have to.
I disagree with this take. And though I’m aware this may contain fallacies, the server farms are being made regardless of whether I buy a fancy lightbulb. I am not investing in these companies because I am lazy to flip a light switch. I already have half a dozen compatible devices that use the same network, and all they did was add one very small device to that network. That infrastructure is being used for so much more and the lightbulb is not the sole cause for the creation of the infrastructure, it is a tiny addition to it. Implying people are morally wrong for using a technology that simple that’s already built into tech they already use is not great.
cars influence people negatively not only because they are dangerous but also because they spend way more energy than the alternative you wouldn't be able to say that about the light switches in a way they can actually save power because you will never be too lazy to turn off the light and these servers are paying for power like everyone else and they are used by hundreds of thousands of people on top of that most lights that are controllable through voice are low power and run efficiently also they dont break as often. and if you actually look at humans or even physics everything is about convenience we always go towards the path of least friction its how we advanced as a species and how the universe works with the only difference being that humans have forethought and know that buying a light switch like that will momentarily be an inconvenience but in the long term will be beneficial
Funny thing is, that at the same time he talks about how scared he is of the Super-intelligent AI. You know that thing that very well could be used to control an advanced traffic-system like he apparently wants?
One thing I will add is that skyways/subways for pedestrians CAN be beneficial in some circumstances. Like my native city has many of those because we frequently get to -10° F in the winter, which is nightmare to walk around in for more than a block at a time. It doesn’t make it good in all scenarios, but it does have its benefits
I live in Siberia. -30°C is ok here. Cleaning skyways/subways from the snow and dirt is a nightmare, draining is a tough task. Everyone knows how hard it is to use stairs in winter clothes (3-5 layers, volumous), head pieces and shoes. Moreover, it gets too hot inside the tunnel (underneath all the layers) and after you go outside sweaty you can easily catch a cold. Homeless people flood those spaces hiding from the frost making them untidy and unsafe.
The Problem with traffic nowadays is, that there are simply waaaaay too many cars. Trains would be the solution, I totally agree. But for example here in my country in Germany we are just busy destroying tracks, which have been there for ages, instead of modernising them. And of course we do, because this country is the b**** of the auto lobby D:
As greys video pointed out one the of the major bottlenecks with cars is humans. You cannot fix everything with trains. I live rural. There is never going to be a train or bus coming near me. Not everyone lives in the city. Some of us actually have to drive to the city, or face an even longer and more costly journey by train.
It's sad how many disused, old tracks there are in Germany. Or the number of semaphores remaining in active use (even if I'm a fan of those personally, it's bizarre to have a major train station still featuring mechanical signals like it's 1928).
we have a few options here. stairs, stabbing, jaywalking, mugging, hit by car, or cardio. I thought this through and honestly I think the underpass is the best, I hate fucking stairs and traffic.
Well, making laws to push human friendly streets and avenues is a much better way to start solving the problem. Cars need it’s space and infrastructure, but so do we. Let’s make walking great again!
@@EmyrDerfel @Emyr Derfel Sweden actually tried a thing like that in the 50/60ss in Stockholm during the so called record years (record growth, employment rates etc). It was called the miljonprogrammet ( a push to make the population of Stockholm over one million) it involved a major traffic rerouting, and the creation of so called ABC suburbs (Arbete,Bostad,Centrum Work,Housing,Center) which where to be fairly self containing I that there would be a limited need to commute outside of your suburb. Unfortunately the project didn't work out as well as intended. It's is a very interesting story about social democracy, city planning and social engineering. Adam should definitely look into it
It is very much like a train, except a train where any specific "car" of the train (and its passengers) can split loose from the train at any one of dozens of points along any given route, and head in a different direction, often within seconds, and where the train can reach practically any destination in the city, without the need for expensive underground tunnels or thousands of additional stations.So, you know, pros and cons.
@@timogul You know it used to be common practice to separate parts of a train to let that car stop at a station that was too small for the entire train to stop at.
@@hedgehog3180 We should bring that back then. Make trains that can split off into groupings of maybe 4-6 seats each, and then each of those could split off every few hundred feet of track to head onto different lines without having to switch cars.
I don't get his argument here about a hacker trying to get some cars to signal that they're gonna turn to get traffic to stop. You don't think everyone working on self-driving technology doesn't know this? That's why you make the car react to changes in its environment, and not try to interconnect them where it would be easy to hack. I don't see how it would be an issue if we're already designing self-driving systems to work independently.
@@omicron1100 A car that can react to it's environment but is not interlinked to the rest of traffic still has the flaws of reacting to the car ahead of them pulling forward. It reduces the gap but not in the way that CGP suggests of Simultaneous acceleration. The thing proposed in the CGP video would require an interlinked system, and thus would have that vulnerability. That said, the hacking threat really isn't as big a deal as the simple issue of cars taking cities away from the people that live in them.
@@TurtleKnite Well, because they're computers, the gap can be reduced so finely that the end result *looks* simultaneous. They would be able to react more quickly and to more incoming objects and make predictions far faster than your average human driver. Honestly just the part about them not ever getting distracted is such an important feature that I think can't be understated.
@@omicron1100 The "Computers can react fast" thing ignores the fact that those computers are piloting physical mechanical objects with inertia using sensors that pick up physical information and noise. Cars need a certain amount of time to begin to accelerate and to come to a stop. If a car begins to accelerate to match speed of the car in front of it the moment it detects any change, you're going to get a lot of false positives. You need certain tolerances before you start accelerating unless you have a certainty that the car in front of you is in fact accelerating and won't stop. The only way you can have that is if the cars are all networked, at least to the other cars in their immediate vicinity.
Actually it makes me cringe everytime, because at intersections where many pedestrians want to cross we can simply set up traffic lights .. duh. Self-driving cars are by far superior even with traffic lights and it really annoys me how many people here and of course Adam Something is pretending that CGP Gray is some kind of pedestrian hater who would oppose that, without any basis for that.
@@germanyoutubedeutschland9899 no, I meant that the way he presented it was funny. I agree that the whole cgp video was cringe, but Adam is pretty funny when shredding other content to pieces.
@A Fels You completely misunderstood my point. What you are describing is not good. You know that. I know that. Adam lets everyone know he knows. But GCP Gray knows that too, and he never said anything else. The allegations against him are completely ridiculous and do not reflect the statements in his video. For Adam, everyone who thinks self-driving cars are good is a pedestrian-hating monster, but the world is not that black and white. You can see the advantages of self-driving cars and still stand up for traffic lights, that's what Adam and Moon Moon don't want to understand and therefore act like unreasonable children here.
@@germanyoutubedeutschland9899 ok so what happens when a pedestrian crosses on red? They're not steered by ai and will still make shitty choices. All the cars driven by AI will have to keep standing because of programming and in some countries that just means they'll be standing forever. I don't know à single person in Paris that actually waits for green
Seems to me like grey only focused on how you can change traffic as a solution, not what better ways there are. I can't speak for him, but I never interpreted this as the best solution to human transport, but just to car traffic
Yes, but as the end of the video states, induced demand is a thing. If you encourage people to use self-driving car, they will use self-driving car, not buses,trams or subways. And if you will need to build parking slots, crossings, larger roads, etc. to compensate for this larger demand. All of tha will require money that will not be going into public transportation, so in the end, you're not solving the problem. Also, even if we're only thinking about solving traffic, moving cars is still more effective than replacing them with self-driving cars.
Thank you for this. The first time I watched this I (as an AI student) thought it was brilliant. Years later and with more knowledge about urbanism and spatial planning I find it bizarre that I thought this was a good video. The points Grey presents are an ultimate techbro wet dream and for all other folks an urban hellscape.
Every techbro is just an aspiring executive, who gets hard at the thought of selling people horrible technology at the cost of the environment, and exploiting labor to become wealthy enough to squash any attempts at pragmatic/functional solutions to problems.
You said it yourself: Grey's video is focused on the techbro aspects. It's about self-driving cars, not about urban planning. I can assure you that Grey's pretty much in team pedestrian/bike-friendly cities + public transport.
@@jmurray1110 Two scenarios: 1. A guy with a BB gun off the side of the road, hiding in a bush - nobody would expect or detect that; 2. A guy walking along the road tossing things on it. The car will either not have time to detect it, or will swerve unexpectedly to the side, creating the possibility of a crash.
Yeah, just because he doesn't mention every single issue with cars, city design etc in a 4 minute video doesn't mean he doesn't know. He just looks at existing systems and what's wrong with them.
The concept of fixing traffic by adding more of it reminds me of when I worked for a small defense subcontractor and had to act excited about exoskeletons to aid the military's effort to turn its soldiers and marines into pack animals who can haul around four hundreds pounds of equipment instead of just two hundred. Our soldiers and marines are carrying too much s**t around? I know! We'll strap more s**t onto them that's super-heavy, adds moving parts and thus capacity for mechanical failure, and needs battery packs that weigh like the back end of a jeep. Or we could just use a mule, which lives on stuff that grows naturally in a forest that can't be consumed by people and, in a pinch, is made of food. Way too many people get their ideas about technology from manga and superhero movies. Does it look cool in a render? Then it's probably the worst possible solution to the problem.
@@fitmotheyap the extreme case of "less human dependent" is "no humans at all". And neither mild nor extreme version of the statement is pertinent to the traffic problem, the because solution itself lies in humans using the best of their knowledge.
You're not thinking ahead, there's a reason why we're not using mules and shit to carry stuff, because it gets tired and can easily die. It shits too, can get out of control if shit hits the fan and if you're trying to be sneaky, the last thing you'd want is an animal going crazy. For heavy stuff we have vehicles but for stuff for infantry an exoskeleton is a great way to increase load and prevent them from getting tired. It's not possible for now but if everyone thinks like you, there'll be no planes today. Imagine thinking something is impractical even though it's still in its early stages. Exoskeleton can also protect, absorb recoil, increase your speed and increase endurance.
The only use i see in self driving cars is in rural areas as an addition to the public transport, basically a shuttle or taxi service if you don't live near a train or bus so it can take you that last little bit. However we often already have shuttles and taxis so we don't even truly need them there
My brain made that joke as soon as he mentioned it. "Why, they'll just get in their own self-driving car, drive across the intersection, and get back out again. Simple!"
No one would let autonomous cars loose on the road unless they were very safe. Safe enough that if a pedestrian randomly ran across the road. The issue would not be cars constantly going & never letting ppl cross rather ppl constantly walking out while not looking & cars having to wait for them. Ps the solution is to have all the solutions.
I've witnessed "induced demand" happen. Back in the 1970s, the 210 Fwy, in the Los Angeles area was built. For a few years, traffic flow was great. But as people moved to take advantage of this freeway, it became more congested. By the late 80s, it was just as bad, as the older freeways. Same could be said for the 105 Fwy, which opened in late 1993. It just became congested quicker.
Whaaaaaaat. But everyone is moving away from California!! How could traffic get worse when everyone is leaving?! /s What they neglect to say is that our population still increases every year because while yes, people are moving away, even more people are still moving in.
@@Crazy_Diamond_75 The fun part about that "everyone's moving out of california" rhetoric is that the data shows that the vast majority of californian migration is people moving from one part of california to another, and the number of people permanently moving out of the state is comparatively low.
I believe that a main part of CGP Grey's point is the optimization of driving and proving solutions while ignoring the real-life problems with it that are not directly related. By ignoring people walking, there is a more efficient solution.
Another example of how most people only think of additive solutions. They would rather add a 10000 dollar autonomous system to every single car, instead of using the much simpler and cheaper subtractive solution, to just not buy a car and build less roads.
This video, and commentators such as yourself, really seem to be missing the forest for the trees. I get that these comment sections are an echo chamber in general but can we please think holistically for a moment? Realistically, are we going to abolish cars in the US anytime soon? Absolutely not. Should we build subways everywhere (the only practical way to currently isolate trains)? Absolutely not. Change in the real world happens incrementally. More self-driving cars = less individual cars = the vast majority of us end up taking mass transit because we're cheap and lazy. Most people don't even want to actually learn to drive, we simply had to in the past in order to maximize individual efficiency at the time. Now that automated solutions exist, it is time to transition; it just won't happen overnight. The entire video seems to completely ignore the fact that pedestrians are a problem for trains even more so than the average vehicle. Can a train deviate from its tracks to dodge a pedestrian? We have a solution for this... let me introduce you to the concept of the overhead crosswalk. Am I saying cars are the solution? Never. It's just that however harmful one thinks CGP Grey's perspective is (which is semi-fair), this video is *far* more toxic.
@@Kittoes0124 Trains have clear and distinct line of track, usually fenced/walled off in urban centre or grade seperated entirely. Cars follow a vague area we call a road, with the only things protecting pedestrians and motorists being a curb raised 5 inches, paint, and the sanity of everyone involved. Now keep in mind that a train might come once every 15 minutes and are clearly visible (most times) from a far distance, while roads can move dozens of cars per minute and often block your sight of other cars. It's obvious which one is safer. P.S. can you explain how automated driving will create less drivers, that feels countert intuitive.
@@abdisaniini Yeah exactly. There is a huge list of reasons why trains absolutely suck for inner city traffic needs. Requiring specialized infrastructure that doesn't play well with other technologies being chief among them. Pretending that we can replace all, or even most, cars with trains is just silly. Anyone who claims that we're not always* going to have both clearly has an agenda or hasn't paid attention to history. Best we can do is minimize the impact of each individual car while simultaneously encouraging as much ride-sharing as possible. The former is already being tackled, although it has always been heavily encumbered by the self-interest of the auto industry (including Tesla). Doesn't matter how much they drag their heels though, progress always wins in the long term. The latter could only be accomplished by enacting public policies that give people incentive to change. Subsidies for those that choose to use some form of public transportation or ride sharing is one option. Alternatively, we could go the punitive route and tax car owners at a much higher rate than we do now, but that'd realistically just punish the poor. Time is the most important commodity of all; so another option would be to prioritize ride-sharing traffic to such a degree (think along the lines of HoV lanes, but get more creative and draconian) that it becomes the obvious choice to anyone that values their time more than the act of driving. Having more self-driving cars on the road means that we'll actually need less cars on the road. This is a bit counter-intuitive until one starts to ponder just how much time the average car spends parked. The primary reason for this is that a human operator is required. Self-driving cars would spend the vast majority of their time in transit because every minute spent in park is potentially lost profit. Even if we fail to enact public policy that encourages individuals to give up their personal vehicles, the profit motive will be enough for a lot of people to "employ" their car as a cabbie. Getting a ride will be dirt cheap, and the many many people who currently struggle with a car payment just so that they can work will happily shift. *Obviously, until something revolutionary happens; such as the discovery of a way to get around the no cloning theorem.
@@Kittoes0124 So you want people to be coalesced into a fleet of moving vehicles that requires minimal rider input and never parks, along with dedicated lanes to fast track them around an urban centre, and gains profit via increased ridership? Congratulations! You just invented a bus! In some cities busses already have dedicated fast lanes, such as in Toronto. There are already a myriad of apps that help people pick the most efficient route, and most comfortable route, meaning even the most braindead person just has to follow what their phone says and they'll reak h. Busses (should) arrive at each stop, at the same time, each day, meaning they can easily be worked into schedules, and since they have trained experienced drivers, it also doesn't need a single input from the rider except for maybe a "hello" when you get on and a "thank you" when you get off. You can pay via a monthly, annual, or distance based subscription depending on the municipality, with a discount for youth, students, and the elderly. And you know the best part? All of this is publicly owned! Meaning your taxes actually go to something that's useful and actually makes a diffrence! And hey, if it does make a profit, that means your municipality more money to play with, to improve the service. Not to mention all the benefits they get by having government information at their finger tips. If your busses runs via gas, or batteries, you get a flexible vehicle that can travel around debris or roads under construction. If it's run via electrical overhead cable, you get to feel good inside knowing your not supporting toxic lithium mines and slaves mining cobalt in the Congo. And if that's not enough for you, just call a taxi.
Same. If you told me a month ago that I would unironically laugh at a meme about a trolleybus, I wouldn't have believed you. Guess it's good to learn about though, as we definitely shouldn't allow the mistakes of the 50s/60s to happen again.
Especially if cities such as New York and Boston have implemented bus rapid transit systems and made building new railway tracks mostly unnecessary, no?
I agree with mostly everything you said, but about self driving cars being hackable by China using quantum computers, if that actually happened we would have WAY bigger issues than the cars being hacked. Think everything that uses the internet, anything classified, would be vulnerable to the attacker. Also, the hacking crippling economies argument also applies to public transit.
Yeah, leaves a very small margin of error - insufficient reaction time to break (even for a machine) if a new obstacle appears ahead. Adam Something focussed on cyber attacks, but what if something as simple as a fault occurred. eg: Automated cars speeding through the intersection from 4 directions, one of their brakes fail and hit another... cars behind them don't have time to react.. cars coming from other directions don't have time to react to the sudden pile-up. No thanks, I prefer my driving systems to have a large margin for error built in!
I think the first point is wrong. You can still have a crosswalk with a button. It just tells the automatic cars that I’m crossing and you need to stop. It just means that we don’t need lights to communicate and instead every car knows what’s happening all the time.
6:00 it's really good to see someone who doesn't appear to have a background specifically in cyber security recognizing this for the threat that it is. "put computers in everything!" is not a good solution
... except that quantum computers won't break into our cryptosystems by the time we'll be able to make cooperative self-driving cars, because lots of post-quantum algorithms already developed today and being developed further and already gaining adoption. Symmetric crypto is already invulnerable to quantum computers, add to that some post-quantum asymmetric algorithm for key exchange (like NTRU-KE) and you are all set on encryption side. Bad engineering however is much more likely to cause problems. Complex systems have more points of failure and one mistake can make it broken, and because of lots of moving parts, mistakes can remain hidden until some specific conditions are met (like a cyclist on the other lane wearing salmon T-shirt, and it's simultaneously sunny and raining, and a gusty wind blowing at your back. Good luck testing for that).
@@pavlus34 nowhere in my post did I use the word quantum, or imply that I was referring to quantum computing. better planned cities > making millions of dangerous machines depend on computers. thanks for playing!
@@pavlus34 Just something to be aware of: When you build systems that need to be robust you will typically intentionally make various subsystems fail and return bullshit during development. SISO (Shit in, Shit out) is a common and old problem in computer systems, but when you engineer for robustness you build and test scenarios where you put in 'shit'. Specifically most self driving car solutions have a two parallel systems, the normal self driving one, and another that's only concerned with 'if the first fails, what's the safest way to stop everything'. The hard thing is to know when the first failed, and that's why recognizing 'shit' is so incredibly important, but for that you also combine lots of parallel systems, from using different sensors (if the mismatch between sensors is too great you failed), from validating against 'memory' (if the road looks completely different from last week *and* the sensor certainty is low... you probably failed), from communicating with other cars (if the things other cars are communicating mismatch with what your sensors are telling you... you probably failed), etc. The point is, when you program systems like this you *assume* mistakes, you *assume* failures, and all you need to achieve is that at the end of the day you're safer than a human.
![Stroads are Ugly, Expensive, and Dangerous (and they're everywhere) [ST05]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ORzNZUeUHAM/mqdefault.jpg)
![Stroads are Ugly, Expensive, and Dangerous (and they're everywhere) [ST05]](/img/tr.png)
The future:
"Honey, let's go, we're late for our Starship Earth to Earth flight to LA!"
"I know dear, I'm trying to reboot the car, but it keeps throwing an error."
On the Starship:
"Dear passengers, due to unfavorable surface weather conditions we'll be landing in Shanghai instead of Los Angeles. We apologize for the inconvenience."
Dame bruh ,it looks like you got some errors in you , must be the error in system that delay you from commenting this comment
funny horsie
I’ve already seen a video review for the VW EV released in the US that uses the phrase , reboot the car ,unironically .
Did you know Grey loves Tesla, is a big fan of SpaceX, and likes Musk in general?
Yeah I never liked this video from CGP Grey, but it really confused me, because he lives in London, and in a recent video, he said he hadn't driven in almost a decade. So he walks everywhere and takes public transit regularly, but still somehow makes a video about how to make cities incredibly shitty for pedestrians. Weird.
Funny how a London guy who hates driving love the American way of just using cars
Revisionist history did a podcast about Waymo and Pedestrian. Their conclusion is that once every car is autonomous, pedestrian will be able to stop traffic because autonomous cars will not want to hit them. Waymo slows down and stops as soon as there's a pedestrian that might cross its path even if it's not at an intersection.
I never bore of the fact that you always comment leave a comment on this channel. Btw, love the Amsterdam videos.
@@TereniaDelamay yeah I heard this too! I think the underrated answer to this is that there's the world where we basically end car travel, and there's the world where we use physical barriers and police enforcement to ensure pedestrian-free roads. I am worried that those with legal and legislative power will produce the latter
sound like Robert Moses
As every player of SimCity knows: the best way to get rid of a clogged road is to remove it.
True though. Simcity doesn't work without good public transit. Kudos to the designers.
Or roundabouts. You gotta love a roundabout.
Or just build public transit in Cities Skylines instead and pedestrianize the surface streets 😂
@@TheSkyGuy77 yep
it's a shame that EA stopped SimCity franchises. The game could flourish if they let Maxis continue producing SimCity the way Maxis intended
A free mugging experience? I always end up paying for mine.
LMAO
underrated comment
th-cam.com/video/n0Kz8gQxzGE/w-d-xo.html
I have a feeling you are on the other side of the mugging
The mugger is getting scammed then. You are paying for the experience before they take your money. Reducing what they can actually take.
I love how a lot of the travel infrastructure videos on your channel is just “This is less efficient than a train, let’s improve it, whoops it’s a train” and i love it, it always leads back to trains
Trains are the crabs/mustelids of travel infrastructure. Optimize something far enough, it becomes a train sooner or later.
It reminds me about an experiment from USSR. In 1950s when new cities were built, some architects have decided to fix traffic. They have spent few years and a lot of money to test different approaches like building extra roads, separating cars from pedestrians, using "green wave" lights (that one was implemented in Moscow, St Petersburg, Almaty and other big cities) etc. but ended up with conclusion that the most efficient way of organising traffic are trams. They have calculated that just one correctly placed tramway can replace roughly 5 lanes.
@@Cosinegl ha and in mexico is enough with 2-4 four lanes at most
Problem with trains is that you have to share it with stinky people
@Anno Kitsune I have a car
I live in germany.
I live 5 minutes of walking from the closest grocery store.
2 Minutes from the closest clothing store.
5 Minutes to my Doctor
5 Minutes to a trainstation for internal or external routes
5 Minutes to multiple fast food joints or restaurants
I dont even need a bike or public transport to reach 90% of my destinations in day to day life
My family doctor is across town, because when I signed up that's where I lived and their office hasn't moved, but everything else is the same. Montreal
So basically like most sea creatures eventually evolved to crab, most transportation should eventually evolve to trains.
its so funny how cgp writhes around trains using language like "a connected set of cars that move in unison" and didnt think of a fucking train. tech bros are incredible
Is this some kind of pun or are you really that bad with crabs.
@@ciprianpopa1503 here th-cam.com/video/wvfR3XLXPvw/w-d-xo.html
Carcinization does not mean that most sea creatures evolve into a crab like form, it only applies to non crab like crustaceans (and even then it's not a guaranteed process as there are advantages to being more shrimp/lobster like, and sometimes even the opposite can happen, where a crab like crustacean evolves into a less crab like body)
@@ciprianpopa1503 it's a meme about carcinization, a process that describes how crustaceans often evolve to have a more compact body plan over time
Just replace crosswalks with slingshots, should solve most of the problems.
I'm partial to Futurama's tubes.
Well I give a glowing recommendation to cannons.
I like this idea. just put people in those giant inflatable balls that you can bounce in and stuff and just throw it against a wall or into a net and then open the door to climb out. it works perfectly.
As you appear to be a deku scrub, I was expecting you to say one of those deku flowers that launch you up into the air with propellers.
Angry Birds : IRL Edition
I visited London once, I liked using transit there. Someone told me a good bus technique there: jump on a bus that's going the direction you want to go, and just get off if it starts to go a direction you don't want to go. That worked well, there were buses everywhere we were going.
Londoners are lucky that they get so much public transport investment
@Itisshoe It's funny cause more people are stabbed (per capita) in the US than in the UK - even without public transport.
@Itisshoe yeah, they are quick for trauma. But that waiting list for serious conditions is inhumane.
@Itisshoe the waiting list for treatment in the UK is roughly seven million. A simple Google search will highlight the horror of the situation. I hope those who might go blind are treated... :(
this channel is “trains will solve all of our problems” and I love it
I like trains
@@TheGerbold VRROOOOOOOOOOOMMMMM
@@abbytran8514 CHOO CHOOOOOOOOM
The Wendover of trains.....
To be fair, trains ARE a good solution for many problems if you are willing to invest the time and money to set it up properly.
When I visited London with a class in college we were on the tube once, talking to some locals. They were talking about how they hate the tube, and how inefficient it is and asked us "Is the US MTU this bad?" We all had to laugh our asses off, and explain that we don't have mass transit in most cities, and what we do in larger cities is borderline useless.
i'd love to see their reaction if they spent a week in los angeles. they'd be begging and crying for the tube lol
@@Wingnut326 Complaining about the tube is a national institution mate, don't take it away from us!
I find it incredibly hard to believe you found Southermers who were willing to talk to you lmao. The people in the south of England tend to be much less willing to talk to strangers than us Northern lot
London tube system has 1 huge issue. Its old as F and kinda hold the city hostage while I think its more and more hard to maintain thanks to the fact it just can't stop for that.
@@petercselik5674 At least it exists.
Anyone:“The solution to traffic is very complex especially when you consider-ä
Adam: *T R A I N*
I mean, its true haha
@@Paco1337 Sure, but some people just prefer to drive (not me, I ride a bike). They wouldn't switch unless you make driving way more uncomfortable. And that would be mean. At least from a contemporary point of view. I for once really don't like to sit in a train. It's like (unattractive) people touching my genitals.
@@Paco1337 but here’s the thing it’s incredibly easy to F with train tracks not to mention how you would have to wait for one train to make around the number of 900 or more stops because not everyone can or wants to walk every where . Both trains and cars have down sides but it’s easy we to stop in front of where you want to go than having to walk there after 20 to 30 mins of waiting for everyone to get on the train . In order to make this work you would have to change how people think about personal transportation in order to not make this a waste of money .
only truths detected
@@wassollderscheiss33 I mean, we spent decades absolutely wrecking our cities to make them more convenient for drivers at the expense of everybody else. I don't think a course-correction in the opposite direction would be "mean", it's just a return to sanity.
in self driving dystopia you wouldn't even need to hack the cars to cause chaos, jamming or spoofing the sensors would be nearly as effective and much lower effort.
Ironically enough, Grey is not a car-driver, in one of his Tesla Vlogs he mentions that he did not drive for years after an accident and if you listen to his podcasts, he mentions that he actually isn't allowed to drive in his current home country of England. His main means of transportation are indeed public transportation and a bike.
God, what a Tesla shill tech bro
maybe he uderstand most people wont giving up car yet. so he try to become relatable first
Why isn't he allowed to drive?
@@Anonymous-df8it Probably never got licensed in the UK. You can only drive on a foreign license for the first 6 months or so of your residency and you have to get licensed if you want to continue driving there beyond that. And US driver's licenses are painfully underaccepted in other countries, i.e. you can't simply exchange your US license for a local one. You're forced to take all the tests.
@@HarshDeshpande91 I thought he broke some driving laws...
Solutions of traffic
Grey: "remove human drivers"
Adam: "yeet the cars"
No people
No cars
No traffic
It's the ultimate techbro solution. People have problems, ergo: no more people, no more problems.
*_yeet the humans_*
honestly I foresee both eventually happening.
Well, trains are already very common in places that aren't managed by insane people.
But, self-driving cars are just eventually going to become normal as the last leg of a journey.
trains are awesome, but there are always lots of areas where trains can't reach. and people don't want to walk.
People already cover this leg of their journey with normal cars, and if they could, most people would press a button and let their car drive them.
Or, even better, we could have an uber-style system so nobody has to spend a ton of money on owning a car.
@@Nerobyrne Yeah. Though instead of self-driving cars, I think hybrids would be better. Technology isn't perfect, so it's always better to have a backup in case of emergency.
Cars are great, but they don't belong in the city.
I love how almost every "new" tech way to transport is literally just fancy trains.
Great accept I don't have access to public transportation and walking 2 hours to work and 2 hours back is not an option. A bicycle is viable but too dangerous because then I'd either be forced to share the road with drunk maniacs going 80+ miles per hour on the road or go into the woods slushing in puddles. Public transportation is about as accessible as the moon for the average American.
*interconnected pods, please
@@petelee2477 the solution isn't telling everyone to not drive and take public transit, but to improve public transit and make it viable so that you are able to make the choice and have it be an actual smart choice
I like trains
@@petelee2477 Yeah because the US politics prevented any efficient sometimes accessible public transportation.
As someone from Germany, I was baffled when I came over to the US and discovered that almost none of the Urban centers were as walkable as back home.
ich war letzten oktober in texas, wollte whataburger probieren und dachte mir ich geh zu fuß „sind ja nur 2km“. bin vom airbnb losgegangen, es gab kaum bürgersteige und habe mehr als eine stunde gebraucht. und ich war nicht irgendwo in der wüste, ich war 10km von austin entfernt in round rock.
The European mindset in this video is extremely obvious.
Look at it this way, you can do daily errands with minor inconvenience (parking spaces, traffic, etc) or you can pay with time (waiting for the bus/train).
You are from Germany, how often is the bus and train reliable?! The amount of times that I've called my boss and said "bus number 1 was late, I missed my connection, I will be late" is ridiculous.
@@rareram The reliability of public transportation in Europe is still better than in the USA, and the ability to walk to the most important places in a city is still something to be considered. I don't really get your point?
@@ShotofDespresso a country that relies on public transportation is easier to disrupt than one that has citizens who have their own method of travel.
For example the country wide mass strike of the train, air, and bus workers did result in a peaceful day. I saw a lot less people at work. No plane noises overhead.
I agree that public transportation around a city is a good idea. But you have to realize that this video is proposing a blanket solution and the creator is saying that they don't care who is affected negatively. That's a very irresponsible way to attempt to change things.
In the usa people like to live in the vast region that they have. In Europe space is a very limited resource... So population is a bit more compact in general.
I feel like I'm rambling, but I guess my point is that both videos are a bad solution to the problem. Solutions need to be more specific to each region.
@@rarerameople can still drive in Europe lmao there is just a choice
If it doesn’t exist then your only option is driving
The fact that when CGP grey said, "no more intersections" my brain didnt question how pedestrians would cross really got me questioning my inteligence
We just need a total overhaul of cities to include pedestrian arch bridges every 300 feet but, in practice, because of tight budgets, more like every 300 in commercial and upper income areas and every few miles in low income areas. Win-win.
The cars would stop. The point CGP Grey made is that humans driving cars stopping anywhere when a pedestrian crosses is unsafe and inefficient but self driving cars will be able to do it. So in theory a pedestrian could cross any time any where. Adam is strawmanning CGP Grey here by using a slippery slope into grade separation for pedestrians when nowhere did CGP Grey actually suggest that. Especially given that he a pedestrian living in London who doesn't own a car.
That's really not a hard problem to solve. Have you ever used a cross walk with a button you press when you want to cross? Just have that alert the self driving cars that someone is crossing, and they can stop. And you can allow the same gap in the traffic to allow people at intersections to cross the road as the gap gets to them. So one gap in traffic allows everyone in that direction down the street to cross as the gap gets to them. BUT, none of this is the real solution. All he did here was go one level deeper, from "There are too many cars" to "increase density and make things walkable", which isn't really getting to the fundamental issue. The issue is there are just too many people, and promoting increased density is exactly the wrong thing, as that means there will be even more people. It's the same stupid argument that he's disproving, but just replace "too many cars" with "too many people". If you look at the population of any other species, is it continually increasing all the time? No. But with people it is. So why just go one level deeper, and kick the can further down the road, rather than address the real problem.
@@gorak9000 What would your solution to an increasing population be?
Buttons to alert nearby cars sounds great on paper but that's a much harder idea to implement than you realize. A fully automated interconnected highway system is simply not scalable, having millions of independent vehicles means way too many failure points.
I mean, he did fix traffic, he just stopped everything else, its like telling an ai to optimise something without setting perametres, eventually it will see that the most logical option is to sacrifice everything surrounding that to create an optimal solution
skynet.
You created an infinite ~~paperclip~~ traffic machine
The easiest way to fix traffic is to ban cars.
I think people are looking way past his video and think he ever claims everything else must be removed. He was just simplifying things for the sake of the explanation of cars on roads.
Not everyone demands literally everything to be explains that's ever slightly relates to 1 small subject. Making short video's forever impossible
@@tardvandecluntproductions1278 the intersection he shows in the video is literally impossible for a pedestrian to traverse. His idea bans pedestrians from the road implicitly.
"Oh man, so far, this sounds dangerously like a train!"
I don't know why but I found this hilarious.
Same
@White wolf That's the big problem with city planners nowadays. Cars need to be more expensive and roads more clogged so that people are forced not to use them?
It's not really their job to force something on people that they don't want...
@White wolf except everyone does not prefers cars. Do you want to move from A to B listening to your music? Headphones and smartphones. Do you want the right temperature inside your transportation?? A/C in buses and trains. Do you not want to walk too much from vehicles to your home?? Good public tranportation planning and not live in a copy/paste suburb. Etc.
@@quiquencio5744 It's a very small percentage though that really prefers it. Most only use public transport out of necessity, because they can't afford anything else.
@@Mike25654 so making it better and cheaper would fix that, no?
Man i feel heard seeing some pictures are in the philippines, road/lane expansion (for a lack of a better term) here are becoming more and more rampant because the local government pushes for car centric roads despite being a third world country, where common folk don't have the fortune to afford housing with garages, and instead are forced to loan cars and park them at the streets, causing it to be more congested. the sidewalks are also getting smaller and smaller (some along the major avenue here is only sized the width of a person)
everything was at least better back then, where almost everything can be reached by commute through means of public transport. as time progresses, things get worse because of the aforementioned paragraph, and it's sad to see that means of public transport gets worse despite it being a huge part of our culture. there are many layers to this, but yeah
That's so true. Vehicle's here are rampant on the road. The problem that the Philippine government does not want to solve is the volume of cars on the road. In fact, some houses have 2 or more cars on their garage being used or not (or used to avoid coding). Our transport system is even shit, road system is shit that is why people are being forced to buy more cars than go on a commute.
Ngl, if our transport system in our country was well developed, where's jeepneys, busses, and tricycles are more systemized, then I would rather use my car to travel to provinces than scramble with other cars here in Manila. There's just too much cars (private vehicles specifically) here in the Philippines, especially in Manila.
Edited: much better if there will be trains like ktx in Korea, and bullet train in Japan to travel in provinces than use a car.
So your walkways now fit half an American?
Philippines? The dipshits now are using Ebikes to slow down traffic, making the road more hazardous than usual by counterflowing, turning whenever they want, and not obeying stoplights because they can get away with it
@@Skhuztha_CulTz0742 At least there's going to be a subway in a few years. Finally.
One of my fondest memories of being in the Phillipines are the jeepneys. Busses, but better. Do they still drive where you live, and are you positive about them as well? To me I always have this utopian feel when I think of them because they seem to be so efficient, cheap, community oriented and.. fun.
I think the real solution is to find a way to get pedestrians from point A to B safely so the traffic can flow more freely. I propose using 1-4 person levitating hyper pods, with stations all over the city. Seems super efficient and practical to me.
also mini ICBMs might work too
Do you mean helicopters? Because you can do that with helicopters. I wonder why there are no cities that have replaced overpasses with helicopters.
@@mariusdufour9186 or we could use blimps instead, imagine what a glorious clusterfuck that would be
I don't know about you but I welcome our glorious steampunk oligarchs.
Just give people powerful pogo sticks. They can bounce over the road.
You know. The whole "Take your car to drive 10km to run on a treadmill" really makes you think.
Yeah but if other people don't watch you run can you really say you're exercising?
@@0Clewi0 Be your own spectator and tell uncertainty to go fuck itself
@@arcturus4762 It was mostly sarcasm about the gym culture in some places
@@0Clewi0 Never miss an opportunity to go tell uncertainty to go fuck itself, while you watch
I know people who do that, very sad.
Even as a huge car enthusiast I think public transport should be prioritized over cars in terms of pure efficiency and livability.
I have the same inner conflict. I love cars, but we shouldn't let us lead by our emotions.
It'll also take a lot of vehicles off the road, which is good for us car nuts.
@Dave M Well cars are cars no matter how they produce velocity. I think the most usefuel vehicle would be an electric bicycle that goes 60km/h.
@@brokkrep A simpler solution? Just a regular bicycle. Why? Becaue:
1. Fights america's biggest health problem, obesity
2. It's fun
3. Really cheap
4. Can be used by 3 year olds - no cars = no danger when crossing a non-existent road
5. Fast on short distances, sustaiable on long trips
6. Works on almost any type of terrain
@@michakrzyzanowski8554 I commute by bicycle for at least two years now. You're right, but hilly terrain makes it hard to not be exhausted at arrival at work
In all serious, I love cars but Adam Something shows how awful a car-centric society does. As such, support for public transport is absolutely needed.
Thing about CGP Grey is he lives in London and doesn’t even own a car. He lives his life as a consumer of public transit! He’s not actually car brained, I think he just likes technology.
Yeah, I also chuckled when he assumed that CGP wouldn't be able to "imagine his life without motorization". Have you seen his Las Vegas vlogs? Oh, how he hated having to drive everywhere.
Techno-Optimism and its Consequences
etc. etc.
Some of Grey's videos over the last couple of years are him walking or cycling around London!
@@lonestarr1490 Driving around in big cities objectively sucks
CGP is a science teacher. His favourite ideas will all work just great, for spherical cows in a vacuum. Just wish someone would forcefeed him Strong Towns, but he intentionally avoids consuming content too close to his own niche, so he hasn't experienced the joy of Map Men Map Men Map Map Map Men Men Men.
Men.
EVERYTHING KEEPS EVOLVING INTO TRAINS
You know the crab thing
@@bugrilyus things also tend to evolve into sharks and crocodiles
As it should
How about making more trains instead of making cars into trains? Just a thought.
@@bugrilyus crabs are baby, everything evolves into worms. snakes are worms, and trains are worms too. bilateral symmetry is where it's at!
I live in Oregon, I walk to our local grocery store twice a week. To get there I get the whole American car experience. I first cross a highway with no crosswalks where I need to cross. Then walk down a road with no sidewalks, cross a painful intersection that I think could be a roundabout. After that I walk to a plaza cut in half by a road that's hard to cross. All of that, twice, per trip.
Have you considered a bike or little motor scooter?
It's not much, but... it's a step up from that.
@@zacheryeckard3051 In a lot of rural and suburban areas, it's safer to be a pedestrian than a cyclist. On a bike, drivers will pass you with little to no clearance, turn directly into your path because they weren't looking out for bikes, or just scream at you to get off the road. At least as a pedestrian you're separate from traffic.
@@lizardbrain_art When there's no sidewalk, there's *not* a separation from the traffic.
@@zacheryeckard3051 While technically true, it's also a driver's mentality. A pedestrian is something that is not a vehicle, and so will be seen.
A bike or cycle is a vehicle, and so must simply mind its own business or doesn't exist to the driver.
Shitty I know, and should be changed, but that is the way it works.
@@adamthethird4753 You say that like we don't see pedestrian strikes.
Tbh, you don't need a hacker to screw up and cause deaths at these intersections. The problem these guys can't get through their heads, is that glitches and programing errors will always exist, and a situation where no room for error exists, like what is depicted, is going to be awful.
Yet somehow safe and efficient automated train and transit systems already exist and are heavily relied upon in many places all over the world now. It's naïve to think that the technology won't continue to improve, evolve and be incorporated into even more complex systems in the future.
An automated train has a predetermined path it follows. Pretty much every part of its evironment is known ahead of time and doesn't change. The train can only move along the track.
A car, though, has to deal with movement in 2 dimensions and has to do it in an environment with tons outside variables that all regularly change. The complexity is really not comparable.
@@patrickherke8947 Like I said, it' naïve to think that technology won't continue to improve and evolve to the point where it can deal with more complex systems in the future.
Once upon a time people didn't believe automated trains were possible either. Heck even planes can entirely fly and land themselves these days if they have to and they operate in 3 dimensions nevermind 2 lol.
Automated vehicles are coming it's just a question of when, not if.
@@vejet Both planes and trains still have accidents, even when they're auto-piloted. Now imagine there still being millions of auto-pilot cars on the roads at once, that's millions more possible accidents.
@@vejet if you want that kind of security that you have with trains, you would need to restrict self driving to certain routes along certain paths that never change. You couldnt stop along the way as it would interrupt the flow, you also couldnt just take an exit, the exit would need to be planned ahead of time. Miles ahead of time.
What if we made it even more efficient and offered a sort of "catch a ride" system along side that? People who want to get to a certain destination could meet up beforehand, get into a car together. Maybe we can even sort those cars so the ones going into the same direction all take the exist one after the other, that way we would reduce the potential risk of catastrophic failure to merge AND we could even use that information to plan ahead of time so when 10 cars leave the path at an intersection, 10 miles down the line another group "knows" that a free space on the path is going to come along in a couple minutes. Speaking of failure, we can increase the reliability of our network if we hardlink all the cars that go to the same destination together, that way one can run out of battery or experience a failure in the drive system without breaking down and grinding the network to a halt. All of this requires a lot of computing time and requires quite exact timing, maybe we could make it so you have a predetermined time of depature, that way you can even plan around a time to leave when going for a little urban exploration session in the city youre visiting. Along the predetermined paths we could also install a different sort of ground and use different wheels to reduce rolling resistance, increasing the range while reducing maintenance and wear of our cars.
Wait a minute. I think i accidentally optimized our car system into a train network again. DAMMIT!
>Heck even planes can entirely fly and land themselves these days if they have to and they operate in 3 dimensions nevermind 2 lol.
If youve ever seen how Planes operate, youre gonna be really surprised. They fly along "corridors", which is airspace thats designated to civilian travel AND designated to certain directions. They have a height, width and length and what youre really doing is getting a plane on a course to insec into one of those corridors. Essentially, planes are trains with a higher energy usage but less dependancy on land based tracks. Thats why they are usually used for long range only.
As someone who loves driving cars, I fully agree with you. Cities belong to pedestrians and public transport, not cars. But living in the countryside it is not possible to live without one, except you want to take a three hour bus ride to just visit a friend who you could easily reach in 20 minutes by car. So get rid of the cars in cities where they are incredibly inefficient due to having to de- and accelerate all the time and public transport is cheaper and faster and just use them in the countryside!
Agreed! Maybe cars aren't as needed in most of western and central Europe but big countries can't really afford super quick public transportation that connects something in the middle of nowhere to everything else every 15/30 minutes. It's just impossible.
@@MaryamMaqdisi That's unfortunately the result of suburbs and how expanded everything is built. European countries are much more compact, the distances are much smaller. For example, take Houston, which is 1,722 km² and has 2.3 million citizens. Now how large do you think Paris is, with 2.1 million citizens? It's 105.4 km².
Houston is *sixteen times* larger than Paris. Not double, not triple, not tenfold but sixteen times larger. No wonder they have traffic issues, everything is sprawled out *way* too far apart. And this goes for a lot of not most US cities due to their rules of single family homes being build and banning any other type of building. And this means every single thing is spread further out. The garbage truck needs to drive further, your power lines are longer, the streets need more asphalt, your need more gas for the distance, delivery takes much longer, your trips to anything takes longer...
TLDR it's extra difficult now to fix because of how the cities were build. But it's not impossible, but it requires some changes. And to forbid anything other than single family homes needs to go first.
If bus travel on same route on same road takes 9 times longer, you should take a closer look what the fuck is happening here.
To get from my home to uni on PT it takes 50-55 minutes, on car - 40-65 minites. And that's not a direct route on PT.
@@MaryamMaqdisiWe are talking about cities aren't we? Oh, and trains for middle of nowhere.
@Quantum Passport driving is always better if you are the only one driving
You could have a city like San Francisco, car unfriendly AND unlivable. The best of both worlds
San Francisco is theoretically livable mainly because it is car unfriendly; it's just that the city government is incompetent at dealing with crime, homelessness, and cleanliness. Tough luck for everyone there. Hopefully, things will change soon.
I live in a part of the city that’s pretty walkable. More cars than I would like, and when the streets were closed to cars during a street festival this summer it was absolutely amazing. But it’s a pretty walkable city and the public transit is at least decent (kinda).
Still unlivable though because the rent is too damn high
@@beevins99 The public transit is decent in the sense that there's almost always a line going to where you want to go, at least inside the city limits. The public transit is super terrible if you have any kind of time schedule and desire a reliable mode of transportation. The number of times I've been stuck waiting for 45 minutes when the next bus was 10 minutes away on a 15 minute bus schedule is too high to count. This is worse when you realize that many of these trips were started at the bus terminus, which was about 3 blocks from the bus storage yard, and no buses showed up at all in that time, except one which said it was the next bus to leave but stayed until after I had finally left on a different bus that showed up. I know this sounds like a singular incident; this has happened to me on over a dozen occasions, but at least those were after work. When it happens before work and the bus is on a 30+ minute schedule...and then the bus that shows up is actually for the cycle after next...RIP work.
The city is pretty walkable, if you like hills and have lots of time and everything you need is close by and you never go grocery shopping for more than maybe 2 or 3 bags at once. At least everything is close. I give it that. Of course, living in the more central parts of town mean you're also closer to the heavier crime areas...Not sure how much that's worth it, to be honest.
Cause of a lack of trains
@@jackstolte hence why most are in no rush to get back on BART to SF
I have a city planning concept I call the “broken foot”: basically you imagine that several people of common ability want to move across the city together. All of them have one or more broken feet (back paws for my dog readers).
However they are not all moving the same way, some have wheelchairs, some crutches, some are being supported by another human.
The city needs to be set up so that this team of broken foot’s can get anywhere they need or would reasonably be expected to want to go.
You next move on to hearing, vision, sensory problems, and intellectual disabilities.
If a child can’t navigate the city, it’s built wrong. They should be able to get from home, to school, to the arcade, to playgrounds, and medical centers.
Helicopter parents: They should be able to what now??
"If a child can’t navigate the city, it’s built wrong." - exactly this. As a kid and a teen, I used to travel a lot around the city I lived in. In a lot of cases, I could navigate around most of the city, using only foot and metro, under 10 minutes walk from the stations. In some cases, I needed public transit and it was awful. Also, metro is a horribly expensive solution but will work if your metro area is over 3+ millions, I believe. We had around 15 and over 20 now.
What I like about Tbilisi, for example, is that their bus stations and lanes are very neatly organised and tightly run. You won't even need metro in a lot of cases. However, it can still be improved, it's a great deal better than Yerevan one, for example, and IMO better than Saint-Petersburg, too.
However metro and cars both have one significant pros over most of the buses I encounter: easy visibility.
It's weird, but it is really hard to find an actual scheme of buses overlaid on city streets. It's always just a list of numbers that don't tell you anything. You can easily trace the road you have to walk, cycle, drive, or take on a metro, to see how to get to your destination, even without entering the start and end of your destination. Not the case with most other ways of public transit!
That sounds like thinnest-skinned man engineering.
No, engineer around a reasonable scope of ability and everyone else can make the personal adjustments they need to get around it.
The school system is set up that way and it has never wronged or damaged anyone ever in the history of education, ever
@@BygoneT The best part of that is that its best read as dripping with sarcasm.
As someone who has lived in Texas their entire life you’re absolutely right. Pretty much every major city has a malicious anti-pedestrian mindset where cities like Arlington are proud of the fact they don’t even have any bus routes
Some guy: Gets some idea.
Trains: "I am 4 parallel dimensions ahead of you."
Trains aren't parallel dimensions ahead
They are into an another plane of existence
Fun fact, god actually came down to Earth to design trains himself.
I love your profile pic. May the force be with you.
@@tjarkschweizer May the force be with you!
Can trains go to a persons house, can a train prevent people from getting diseases like covid because its public transportation. Can trains be built at everty corner of a cntenent that would otherwise be used as a highway. Automatic cars solve these problems and pedestrains wouldnt even be a problem since people can use ai cars like Uber wihtout the need of a driver.
As an American: I understand CGP Grey's viewpoint here. We totally worship the car, and I see the negative effects of that.
As a software engineer: Encryption isn't really an answer to the problem of infrastructure being hacked. Current encryption, when properly used, is already unbreakable even by the best super computers. So if encryption was the answer, we'd already be hack free.
Americans don't worship the car...it is the only choice given to Americans.
As wise people have said, the best security is only as good as the dumbest person responsible for using it correctly.
It’s absolutely true that encryption is probably gonna be fine for a while, but how much can we trust auto makers on fixing vulnerabilities and actually use encryption properly 😂😂😂
@@NumberedMonk a chain is only as strong as its weakest link
@@NumberedMonk So google token tipe of deal. Like lets let computer take control of our passwords
Quantum computers cannot nilly willy break encryption. There exists encryption resistant to quantum computers - even public key schemes. I don't disagree with your video, it is on point. However, hacking almost never happens because encryption gets broken, but rather because errors are made while implementing encryption.
In cryptography, humans are the weakest link
Adam criticises CGP for making a video about a topic he doesn't understand and then happily starts talking about something he doesn't understand himself lol. I agree that train good and car bad, but the part about cryptography is just plain wrong.
@@nUrnxvmhTEuU
It's a minor detail, not the core of the video.
I am the 4th reply. The comment above, along the three other replies above me are absolutely correct.
Most common entry is human access for hacking, hacking really is the wrong word tbh. Only a college level example but as a lesson we were asked to try and rip data from a specific network. We got a lot further as we had figured at a password theme that was being used and got admin access. Turns out last name + dob is terrible passwords.
I’ll be honest, before I watched Adam and saw Grey’s video, and thought it was an amazing solution, it took me watching adams videos to actually figure out that I was just so ingrained into the car world, that just getting rid of the cars never crossed my mind. I’m glad that I realized the error with that view.
It's understandable if you don't experience the alternatives. If you grow up in a car-centric environment, of course that's your first pick. It's what you know. And it might feel really odd for many people when you take away the one thing they know. "Then how the f do we get around?" It's hard to imagine when you never got to experience any alternative as a bus, train, tram, metro, bicycle, scooter, e-bike, even boat, or just the ability to walk. It won't cross your mind, because you never did any of that.
I totally get it how it got this way.
It is location dependent. If you think it's possible to change all towns and villages over to public transport you simply have no perspective outside an urban environment. It then gets trickier to public transportize when you need people to transit from a rural area to an urban area.
Hundreds of millions of people live more than 50 miles from a town with 50,000+ people, public transit is literally impossible in an economic way for them.
According to 2020 census, the 214,032,675 Americans live in 58 metropolitan areas each with population of at least 1 million.
"Hundreds of millions of people live more than 50 miles from a town with 50,000+ people," is simply false.
@@fatviscount6562 Oh my bad, it was only a single hundred million people. Or maybe you could extrapolate that down to a few dozen million people.
That changes everything, it is suddenly possible for those millions of people to have fast or effective public transportation! (that is sarcasm)
And regardless, the way that American cities are laid out means that simply being within a metropolitan area does not guarantee that you are within a reasonable distance of the resources you need on a daily basis. Before you could even argue that it would be possible, I would first need to even know how "metropolitan" is defined from wherever you pulled that data.
@@eewweeppkk MSA and CSA are official US Census Data, with precise definitions.
Your comment implied that transit is impossible in most of America, when the reverse is true: that well over 2/3 of Americans live in dense enough places to warrant good transit in the rest of the world, yet in the US have nonexistent to abysmal transit.
"This sounds dangerously like a train"
The most Adam Something statement ever said. I love it so much thank you
Yeah, I think he should change his channel name to "Sounds like a train", that pretty much sums up his content ;)
Except it's not anything like a train because people standing in line are not a train. The same goes for cars in a line.
@@spacedoohicky But a train is a line of cars... ok depending on the type of train it may have an engine. But the trains I drive consist only of cars, that are in a line and accelerate at the same time.
@@ssingfo Trains also pull hoppers, flat beds, containers, stacks of containers, refrigerators, and fluid tanks. And in the definition of "train" each vehicle is connected, and travels on a rail system. Sometimes trains even pull a rack of cars (motor vehicles).
But in the definition there are more loose meanings of alt-definitions of "train" that actually does stand for "a line of people", but then Adam Something's joke doesn't work because the equivocation leads to even more confusing references like "gear trains", and a "train" on a wedding gown. So in a metaphorical way Adam is correct in calling it a train, but it's virtually meaningless as a joke because it is a confusing metaphor.
Also there's a video showing what in China is being called, an "innovative" "virtual rail train" which everyone is making fun of because in England they have the exact same transport which they call a bus which is a series of buslike cars connected in series. People were saying, "That's a bus. LOL.", or "That's not a train. It's a bus. LOL." which gives the impression that even if the cars are connected in series, going the same speed, that isn't always technically a train, except maybe metaphorically.
But further the joke doesn't work because a series of automated cars wouldn't just follow each other, but could also split off at any turn which breaks the definition of train absolutely. It's just a really bad joke.
@@spacedoohicky You do know that there is a general word for all those things, (hoppers, flat beds, carriages, etc.) that word is car. Therefore a train is always pulling cars. Unless its only an engine. Or do you want to tell me that my list of cars (a list refering to all the cars in a train) is wrong. Like I said, I'm a train driver, and I even drive trains only consisting of powered cars, no locomotive.
A funny thing about public transport is it helps drivers by getting cars off the road. The more people take the bus, bike lane, or rail system, the less auto traffic to clog up the freeway. Even people who commute entirely by car should be in favor of walkability measures and better public transportation because it will make their trip easier.
And buses, as public transport that uses the same roads, have more capacity than cars in the same volume. Rail transport has even more capacity, but also needs specialized driveways.
Exactly. I live in Europe and I heard people complain all the time about traffic jams in the city center at rush hours and I'm like, what do you mean? Unless there is a road renovation, at worst you're gonna stop for a minute at a red light and that's it. You will have enough time to easily pass after. Why? Because all of city center is well connected with massive buses on their own lanes and trams, and these travel absolutely packed.
Where there actually are traffic jams is outskirts. Why? Because people who use those roads have to travel by car because they either go inter city, buses for which are more rare and less convenient to use, or don't have direct bus connection.
When I see politicians use public transportation instead of gas hogging SUVs then I will take their demand for more trains more seriously
But it's abstract, takes some time and it's difficult to wrap ones head around this idea - sooooooooooo let's keep building them roads!
The problem with trains.....Trains don't go everywhere. If you live outside the city, there are no trains.
one huge problem of these proposed future where self driving cars all work together is compatibility. we can barely get electric car companies to agree to use the same chargers never mind have their driving ai perfectly communicate with eachother
And every car company would have access to all of that data, exactly where you are and where you're going every single day. Similar to phones, but essential to drive anywhere.
To be fair, at this moment in time there's only *one* current electric car brand that isn't conforming with the US's J1772 charging standard, and most electric car owners rib the hell out of them for it because proprietary equipment has, is, and always will be stupid.
what if we did self driving cars but they were all connected by physical bonds so they would all move it exactly the same time and oh right I’m talking about a train
A single accident in one of those AI intersections could kill dozens of people
Android system cars aren't allowed in Apple cities...😆
My family has two cars, and I have always been surprised by how we hardly use them in comparison to public transport. I always use bus or train to get around, and thanks to the way my city has been designed. I live in the outer suburbs, and my family practically never uses cars; and if we lived in the inner city I can imagine we would never use them unless leaving the city.
Until I can move musical equipment around( bass amps, upright bass and tuba, I know awful instrument selection as a kid) I'll always need a car for even small trips for certain things, but try and not use it if things are walkable beucase minus highway night driving it ls just added stress to my day, no idea why people who need to lug around absolutely nothing would ever drive even a mod sized suv like mine, feels like a tank and it's just an old v6 highlander, can't imagine driving the V8 monster truck I park next to wt my apartment, and I've never even seen them have a front seat passenger lol
A note on the encryption part: we already use encryption so strong it takes 100s of years, but encryption doesn't stop exploits. Like, no matter how good the encryption is on self-driving cars, just emitting a lot of noise on the same frequency will take out their communication
As long as the systems fail safe, this is not an issue. If someone flashed a whole bunch of lights at you, you're likely to crash also. As always, there's an XKCD about this:
xkcd.com/1958/
@@NickLilovich Am pretty sure flashing people without getting found out is far harder than just discreetly hiding an antenna somewhere that emits noise
I mean... What you're describing is literally a DoS attack, one of the most primitive types, and they really are not that hard to filter out. DDoS's are far more dangerous, but can still be countered by relatively simply Zero-Trust procedures that add virtually 0 lag time. So no, you can't just emit a lot of noise and cause cars to crash.
The entire infosec portion of this video is garbage. He thinks that ""encryption"" matters in this context - encryption isn't the fundamental problem. Even if you could break any encryption, you can't just send arbitrarily shit to cars to get them to do stuff since you lack the authn/authz required to make them obey you.
And "quantum" as just an imaginary baddie of all crypto is hilarious. There already exist quantum-immune algos. They have existed since like 2010 or even earlier.
Seriously, this video makes me doubt everything about this guy. What a goon.
@@TheDeathlyG Frequency jamming isn't a primitive or solved DoS type. It still works and there's no meaningful solution to it other than "stronger signals" - which is just an arms race against an attacker. No solution to that.
DDoS doesn't even make sense in this scenario. And DDoS is just a subset of DoS that almost exclusively applies to network-layer DoSing. Tons of DoS attacks (particularly resource DoS) are still viable without any need to distribute them.
This wannabe infosec comments section is almost as bad as the video.
"Oh man, so far, this sounds dangerously like a train!"
I laughed so stupidly hard I almost choke myself.
You can run a bunch of Teslas together on steel rails and name that an AI Hyper Connected Pod Lane
It's the transport equivalent of carcinisation. Eventually everything becomes train.
0:56 for the train bit, it's great 👍
Do not choke yourself :c
Same here, Adam’s sarcasm can be a health hazard
You should collab with Not Just Bikes, he is also specifically fond of the American urban development strategies
He did, in the last video he uploaded
@@estebanjosearancibiardrigu4068 I have not done a collab with Adam Something, for what it's worth.
I'd be open to it though; I enjoy his videos.
@@NotJustBikes Man i was so surprised to see you here
@@NotJustBikes I love the sheer potential a video with both of you would have.
True
The intersection without lights graphic he showed also was absolutely terrifying. 1 car makes 1 mistake and suddenly you have a really bad pileup and many many dead people.
I dont think its that simple. These cars communicate at the speed of light. They hypothetically could all stop simultaneously to avoid an accident
Well its a good thing our current system uses humans, who are known for never making a mistake!
A bus is functionally a self-driving car for most of the people on board
Except it carries 15~50x more people than a car while only occupying the same space as 3 cars would. Not as good as a train, but way better than cars, and better at dealing with smaller, lower budget routes
@@adityaattri5414 That's the way we're heading. If you want to prevent automation, you'd have to put an end to capitalism, because it demands that we do whatever promises the most profit.
If we don't want to put an end to capitalism, we better start about thinking how to deal with mass unemployment and the 'unemployability' of virtually everyone without a major in the STEM fields or art.
Yea, a self-driving car which only drives a predefined route and only stops at predefined spots.
Yooo this is the best comment here
@@LeyvatenLoop Yes, and the daily commute takes an hour of waiting and 20 minutes of riding instead of just 10 minutes of driving.
I think CGPgrey was so focused on making cars not suck that he failed to consider the fact that the best car is no car at all.
wrong.
best car is train car.
Problem with train car is other people I'd rather sit in a car for extra 10 minutes
yeah absolutely, enough degenerates using public transport already so a longer drive and brisk walk is much more "eco friendly" if you catch my drift.
maybe removing degenerates from our society and training out that behaviour will make public transport a lot more comfortable, and therefore, viable.
@@ugbayoogway Bro, you actually fucking sound like Adolf Hitler.
Hard agree with SomeEnglishDude. Hitler's main agenda was exactly that, removing "denegenerates" from society (which according to him were jews but also lots and lots of other people)
"How, in the name of Christ, will a pedestrian cross this?" I was not prepared for you to drop your argument in just like that. Hilarious.
I don't understand how this is an effective argument. There are at least two solutions to this problem I can think of: 1. Where I live pedestrians can press a button when they want to cross a street and the traffic lights act accordingly. This idea can just as well be used to inform a network of self-driving cars. 2. Pedestrians could also use underground crossings which is as well already done nowadays.
@@someliker He literally talks about how inconvenient underground crossings are in the video.
It's simple. The pedestrian whips out his/her phone, opens an app, orders a ride share, gets in the car on one side of the intersection and gets out on the other.
Ahahahaa good one
@@someliker yes I agree the button thing sounds like a very simple solution
"how, in the name of Christ, will a pedestrian cross this?" I just about *died*
Clearly, of course, we create *self-driving pedestrians* that will automatically intersperse themselves with the traffic when crossing the intersection...
Meanwhile in Budapest.
The previous mayor:
"Increase capacity!" (More lanes for cars.)
45,5% support at election.
The present mayor:
"Decrease capacity!" (More lanes for bicycles, less lanes for cars.)
50% support at election.
The mayor candidate who has no chance of winning:
"Let urbanists do urban planning instead of politicians and lobbyists. Remove all private car traffic from city centre and give it back to pedestrians. Develop public transport to a level where people choose it instead of their cars."
4,5% support at election.
Develop public transport to a level where people choose it instead of their cars."
4,5% support at election.
Well that sums up the issue.
Some people will ALWAYS choose their cars, thus the promise is unfulfillable.
I think this is emblematic of the problem that people are instinctively weary of radical change. Even if you are selling what they want they will look for a half measure (see the Dems and Labor parties if the Anglo sphere)
To be fair, that third guy's proposal sounded HORRIBLE, so fucking boring lol
@@LancesArmorStriking
>Russian shill
@@regulate.artificer_g23.mdctlsk the Russian government is conspiring to decrease the efficiency of Budapest’s public transportation network by paying people to disagree with you in TH-cam comment sections be very afraid!
i never thought of it from this perspective - even if grey's video was trying to solve the problem, it was still doing it from the mindset that the road needs to be filled with cars from the beginning. we've had cars in the back of our minds, when trying to solve problems that cars cause, for years.
yep, and every time they mention adding lanes, I always think: why not make smaller cars? And we do, they are called bikes. And if you remove all cars and re-stripe the road, imagine how many bikes (bicycles and motorcycles) could go past? Except asking Americans to cycle is less effective then asking them to vaccinate against a deadly pandemic disease.
The only way to solve a problem is to remove the cause of it.
@@nharlow_4303 would that be cars, or the humans that make and drive them?
@@Krieghandt Well of course removing the drivers that are idiots from existence would solve more problems than just traffic. But if we were to make every car self-driving then those cars would become completely pointless since they're not transporting anyone. So the next best option is to remove the tool that the problem is being created with: the cars.
I personally believe that personal cars should be limited to only people who are physically incapable of traveling by foot.
@@Krieghandt Human safety comes into account, there is a reason why motorcycles are viewed as coffinbikes.
The reason there's so much support for cars and push-back against cuddly green solutions is that (for most people) car dependency is a given. It's been baked in by housing developments that make public transport impossible, by the separation of working living and shopping areas by car-demanding distances, and the fact that alternatives (if possible) aren't being provided.
There's a reason that houses a 45 minute drive from the city with no train infrastructure or nearby facilities, are cheap. They're vastly inferior. They should be nearly free for how much long term cost and time wasting they have baked right into them with travel time and expense.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't build solutions to this problem - we should - but issue number 1 is that people don't recognize how stupid it is buying far from infrastructure, and how much it will impact them long term. A change in buyer habits would drive demand for more infrastructure and additional dense housing.
Instead, we seem determined to urban-spawl our way from coast to coast, chasing that 'American* dream' of a house and land package - eliminating every inch of undeveloped pristine natural land along the way.
*Substitute with your country as necessary, I'm not even from the US but it's pretty much the same car-centric design where I live.
some of the most expensive areas where i live are near train stations
I have family who lives an hour away from *anywhere* so yes, cars are a given. Because no one is making a train to go by their house.
Not even considering the safety of waiting in your car instead of just outside for an hour because your timing was off. Or difficulty with carrying stuff. Is the train going to wait three hours because you nearly hurt yourself carrying your luggage out? Or had an emergency but already loaded stuff?
@@firstnamelastname9237 It's... generally safer to wait outside of your car than in it, because if you're in your car you're broadcasting that mugging you also nets them a CAR instead of just a wallet. At least in the US, where every criminal has easy access to guns and your flimsy metal car exterior isn't going to do shit to stop a bullet.
@@Dolthra I tried looking that up. Haven’t found that. Did find subway stations being dangerous though, which is exactly the situation of people being stuck outside their car because they’re relying on public transportation.
Also a car mugging wouldn’t be a two for one. It’d be a much harder mugging which is more likely to get them caught since the person can just hit the gas and is in far less danger.
While firearms are common in the us (and they could just build one potentially if not) it would still reduce the amount of people doing it, since not everyone can afford a gun (or steal one) in the first place. Wheras just standing around provides no protection.
You know I wasn't super into trains until I started watching this channel but now I am die hard for public transport with trains since you are correct, that for areas with high congesttion its great to move people to areas they want to go, and buses can fill in for less popular routes.
I would kill for every major city in the US to have convenient bullet trains like Japan, I just don't see it happening because this country is convinced that moonshot ideas like hyperloops and entirely software driven cars will fix everything.
also its like a 2 day thing just to drive from coast to coast…and thats just the us, it’s about a 3 day thing (and like 2 ferry rides) coast to coast in canada.
@@sevencents7 Yeah, it'd probably be more than 2 days for me lol. I can't drive that long straight through. When I'd arrive I would barely be able to walk from all the cramping.
Pretty much the only appeal of a shinkansen-style system in America is for people who are serious about the environment; the niche filled by bullet trains in Japan is already filled in America by commuter flights, and so the only use case for it is in cutting down on emissions from aircraft. Bullet trains are not commuter transportation in the sense of "commuting from the suburbs", they're commuter transportation in the sense of "commuting from another city 400 miles away". When you arrive in Chicago after leaving New York, whether it be by bullet train or commuter flight, your first stop is still going to be the Hertz Car Rental desk at the terminal you arrived at unless a slew of other changes are made which are entirely separate from the issue of America's ancient railway system. It'd do little in the way of reducing car usage.
(But I would also kill for it, if only because it's a cool as hell moonshot idea, just like the hyperloop.)
(What America needs is either to completely redesign itself from the ground up and/or sprawling interconnected local transportation systems which make getting around once you arrive at your general destination easier, which is almost as impossible as the physics-defying absurdity of the originally proposed Hyperloop.)
The hyper loop is a legitimate thing, not just a moonshot idea. It’s not the best solution at the moment, as a LOT more infrastructure and money would have to go to hyper loops to allow them to be significant
To Grey’s credit, I started paying more attention to my spacing with other cars and I think it’s made a difference in my own contribution to bad traffic flow.
Watching your spacing is absolutely a solid thing to do as longa s you are stuck driving. It’s also significantly safer to just back TF off from the care ahead of you based on how much speed you have. I had a lot of work to do with my ex-husband and getting him to treat driving like the activity it really is: the single most dangerous activity a person will participate in during an average day.
I also tend to favor space ahead over space behind me. I know other drivers suck, and giving myself extra space means I can slow down in more time, and kind of undo a bit of any traffic snake I run into… and another big consideration is that the greatest amount of delay you can run into is if you are involved in a collision yourself. Even if no one is hurt, and very little damage has been done, you’re going to have to be delayed and deal with the situation, rather than getting to where you wanted to go.
Even in motorsports, “safe is fast”.
I felt like a boss when I did that yesterday
Ditto. Being more aware of my spacing and influence on others is positive change. =]
I live in Florida and we have the shittiest drivers on the east coast if not the entire US. There is no public driver's education in this state. People just learn to drive from people with bad habits and their environment of bad drivers around them. Attentive driving is rare, turn signals are rare, proper acceleration on an onramp to the flow of traffic is rare, observance of the concept of the passing lane is rare. Drivers are getting worse and worse and they are coddled by their new car's "safety" features of proximity alarms, auto braking, and 29 cameras, so they can spend more time on their cell phones while driving. Self driving cars has become an almost unavoidable solution in order to save idiots from themselves.
@@Timithos you're not wrong but unfortunately that's also how it is in many parts of the country. florida is just… special
Just feel like pointing out that the pipeline hack itself didn't disable the pipeline, it disabled the company's billing system so they shut down service to avoid accidentally giving anybody free gasoline.
That is one of the most depressingly capitalist things I've ever heard
@@magiv4205 And socialism or communism would have behaved differently in that situation?
@@solaris9426 Yes, actually. Because firstly, a government controlled gas line would be far more secure than a privately owned one and would be less likely to be hacked in the first place. And secondly, the government wouldn’t shut off the gas line because it’s not the government’s goal to profit off of the gas line, because the taxes would have already been paid to use it.
@@jacobrzeszewski6527 What he said. Privatized infrastructure leads to neglected infrastructure, because to fulfill capitalism's goal of constant growth and profit, you need to invest the lowest feasible amount of money to make the biggest profit. If that means not updating the security system of one of the most important pipelines in the country to save money, so be it. If that means not renovating the electrical grid from the 50s or so to save money and de-coupling it from the surrounding states to de-regulate it even further, so that one single cold freeze in texas can utterly shut down large parts of a state that's almost as big as Germany and France combined and leave them without heating or running water - _so be it._ Oh, and guess what - as soon as electricity became a commodity, what did capitalism do? Drive up the price from 12 cents/ kwh to up to 9$/kwh. Not only did they not have elextricity, but those affected could now pay thousands in bills because the vultures in control of the grid saw a way to make more money off these people's misery. Apart from getting bled dry, hundreds of people died as a result of this btw, and they wouldn't have died if their most basic infrastructure wasn't privatized into oblivion.
@@magiv4205 It's also not true. They shut down lots of things, and it took a long time to get back running because the hackers might have broken stuff, and turning it on again without checking every facet would have caused irreversible damage.
For self driving cars to work, they would have to remove every single non-autonomous car from the streets and I have no idea how that is supposed to work.
You even need to consider that a large amount of people really wants to drive, so there's no way to get rid of regular cars.
Actually no, it does training them a lot harder but it's definitely possible, even if take a lot of time. When successful they will be better than your average human driver in the proper human driving environment, and, how CGP said, they don't have to be perfect, just have to be better than humans.
Same way we removed horses from roads.
@@Skaypegote Dude, people still use horses on roads.
@@Skaypegote As someone who live near Amish country, horse are still used on roads.
Tech enthusiasts: Welcome to my smart home, literally everything is voice activated
Tech (particulary IT) workers: I have one thing in the house that fits the loosest definition of a robot, and that's this printer but I keep a hammer next to it so I can destroy it if it makes a noise I don't recognize
basically
People say this, but I don’t think it’s true. I’ve heard of and know tech workers who are happily quite invested into smart homes and such.
You’re right about printers though, absolutely no one trusts those bastards.
huh, this looks very familiar. wonder which post this is from
@@cjeam9199 I'm friends with a computer engineer at work and she has no socials, runs Linux on her smartphone to avoid being tracked by Google. The paranoia is real 😂
@@cjeam9199 I do software development because rent, but boy do I dislike computers. I feel like my coworkers are mixed, with some truly loving tech and buying into things like crypto currency and self driving cars, while most seem rather indifferent
The number one problem with self-driving cars is that even those cars are prone to traffic.
But if every vehicle is controlled centrally, you could get the most mathematically efficient use of the roads.
@@benjacobs574 cause IT systems never break down, and everyone always has an internet connection.
And even if you had mathematically optimized traffic you'd still have traffic....
@@benjacobs574 Not the most efficient one, just a more efficient one. Your GPS doesn't calculate the mathematically proven shortes route, but settles for a "good enough" solution. Now scale that up to thousands of selfdriven cars. We don't have the supercomputers to calculate that
@B J, well presumably they would be like separate carriages that can form trains when necessary but then easily split off to get to a different location.
@@NabekenProG87 lmao if we did have enough computers for it they would be more laggy than the average grandmothers computer
"terminally car-brained" holy shit this is my new favorite expression now, thanks a lot xD
Thing about CGP Grey is he lives in London and doesn’t even own a car. He lives his life as a consumer of public transit!
@@aliensinnoh1 yeah, he hate driving
Nichijou!
its so good i want to make a series highlighting how car brain runs rampant through most of the "western world"
ie. every american
I saw CGP's video as less of a good idea, and more of a math/logic experiment, but yes, trains and busses are a lot better.
Yeah this video came across as too smug for me
It's not a very good angle to approach the concept of traffic to isolate the speed of cars in movement from every other aspect of the use of space, and the fact that the time a car spends moving is by far the minority of its life.
Would you sacrifice the comfort of a personal car for public transport? I wouldn't.
Imagine carrying a f*ckton of bags with you, for example, when you are shopping by yourself. Not only will it be more problematic to carry all of them with you when you are getting on and off the bus/train/etc., but you will also be blamed by other people for taking too much space with your stupid bags.
Car is freedom, public transport is not.
It is actually a common theme with all these new and fancy solutions to transport and energy generation(i'm looking at you, wind turbines), they are great until you start looking deeper into details.
@@МаксимГорюнов-м7и you're speaking from car as default again.
@@weatheranddarkness okay, if I have a personal train instead of car, I don't care. The point I was trying to make and the one you missed is that you need personal transport, not public. The way it works is a different story.
I'm not going to defend CGP Grey on his video (although the information part about how congestion happens is good - just not the solution), but he said himself that if he was doing the video today he probably would change a lot in this, because he isn't happy with this video and put way to much "belief" into self-driving cars. I'm paraphrasing of course.
@@verde5738 I didn't say you cannot criticize it. and people asked him not to take it down. Because some tips are good in there.
He should remake the video then, but with his sort of schedule that probably won’t happen for a while
@@Sentient_Blob Well - Veritasium even cited CGP's video i his last video. I know that CGP doesn't have time, but at this point he should write on how many mistakes there are.
@@Sentient_Blob CGPgrey has talked about once a video is uploaded, it doesn’t get touched (unless disaster strikes)
@@jannegrey I don’t think there are many mistakes. I just think he ignores all the other solutions to traffic
"Because noone has ever fixed traffic, by adding more capacity" The problems i have in cities: skylines LMAO
counterpoint: that's because everyone fixes capacity by adding more traffic.
This is because traffic is always growing because of globalization and concentration of capital.
government are just desperately trying to catch up with capacity until the whole system just collapses and burns in blue flames
Make sure you add the right lanes. Biffa is the youtuber who does fix your city, if you haven't seen him, and he will regularly cut lanes on submitted cities after getting the turn lanes set right for the game AI.
@@deltaxcd But also because without heavy traffic, a car is more convenient for most people, and therefore a lot of people only take public transport if traffic is sufficiently bad. If you add capacity, the car gains an edge over public transport and people switch back to using cars, blocking up the roads again.
@@CFTim I highly doubt if traffic can get that bad to justify use of public transport which is not only inconvenient and slow but very overpriced too.
And if you want to fight blocked roads rather than forcing people to use shitty public transport you should plan your city to eliminate the need to excessive transportation.
it is extremely stupid city planning when you have long lines of cars moving to one direction in the morning and in another direction in the evening
when this happens it is better to identify what is the the destination of all those cars and move that destination to the less busy place.
I got a genius idea, connect all the cars together and they all move when the front one moves
Oh, I can improve your idea. Give them a dedicated route where the only time they have to stop is when they're letting passengers off or taking passengers on, which allows them to move at high speeds through less populated areas.
Oh, and you could also make that vehicle be powered by electricity instead of gas! You might not even need a lithium battery!
Even better, give the route a dedicated lane and install tracks that have lower friction than rubber tires,
You are a genius!! So eccentric and awesome!! You should start an electric vehicles company called Edison and build a "Terafactory" in Shanghai!
Guys, guys listen. I was thinking, what about we also do that, but under the ground so it don't take space on the surface ? Just imagine how cool would this transport be!
Best way to solve traffic would be maximum and efficient Public transit like metros , trains and buses . We should be able to travel all around the city using public transit and should use bikes or walk for smaller distances
Yeah, what you do about people who just don't want to use a vehicle that other people use? Because that's why most people buy cars.
@@talkysassis most people where? The US has almost no feasible alternatives to driving yourself or at least being driven by someone else, and that's because these alternatives were phased out by auto industry lobbyists, not democracy. Look at any country in Europe and, while many still have high car ownership, their public transit is way better than that of North America, even in much poorer nations.
@@talkysassisthat’s definitely not why most people buy cars. Look at japan (where majority of japanese people own a car) or european cities, where still lots of people own cars (or have at least an access to a car from a family member, or use company car for personal use as well), but prefer to use public transport when possible. People who are irrationally afraid of being with another human being lets say on a bus or a metro are a minority. And for those, providing good public transport and bike infrastructure is beneficial, as it would take cars off the street of those drivers that in current circumstances have no option but to drive. After all, no one is proposing getting rid of roads altogether, how would fire trucks, police cars or ambulances get through? There are no fire bikes or trains. How would cars providing all sorts of business from delivery, to utilities, to taxis come through? We need roads and we need cars, even though for personal use most of the trips could be done more efficiently alternative. And then even few lunatics that for some strange reason don’t want to be on public transport or a bike might be happier at the end of the day, as roads would get less congested and trips faster
@Brian Williams auto industry lobbyists are just as much a part of the American democratic system as voting.
Nobody would actually want to do that. How much fun would it be to take a two hour commute every few days just for food? You're not carrying 30 lbs of groceries home on a bus, Public transportation isn't transportation, its a public commute service, because its not actually designed to move anything other than people. Its designed to get people to work, and then home; not make your life easier, but your boss's. This guy is pathetically out of touch, and so is everyone who advocates for public "transportation." Its garbage.
"terminally car-brained"
Adding that one to my repertoire, thank you.
Nice, I also want the government to control whether I should be allowed to travel or where I should be allowed using their transport instead of being self-sufficient
"terminally american"
@@acceptable1514 how about making transits free just like how roads are free?
@@acceptable1514 nice, i also want government controlling where i can take my car by building and maintaining highways (or not doing those). And I also want to stare at increasingly high gas prices as I submissively pump gas anyway because it is the only way I can stay afloat. And I also want to be referred to as self sufficient while I use privately pumped petroleum to power my car and am at a governments mercy roadwise as I zoom down residential roads.
Just accept cars are bad, do I need to say why trains are good? Because I know trains have some of these problems, but only some.
@@acceptable1514 you do realize the government builds roads, right?
Here's hope your solve traffic: give people alternatives so they don't have to use their cars,prioritize public transport.
@Brian Damaj I would agree if this channel was about rural planning and not urban planning. Cities are kind of his thing and public transport is very important and vastly underutilized.
It's tongue in cheek if he ever made a reference to trains being the solution to everything.
Also if you are in a rural area and have as many cars as some of the pictures in this video then maybe we do need to invent some kind of new public transport. Something like a big car that can stop at people's houses and pick them up.
@@ThisChangeIsAwful a bus?
@@knosis LOL 😆
@@ThisChangeIsAwful 🚎
@@knosis 🤣😂💀
6:18 The Colonial pipeline shutdown happened because of a ransomware attack on Colonial's very poorly protected invoicing and revenue network. Until it paid the ransom, Colonial was being denied any effective means of billing its customers so it shut down its pipeline rather than allow its customers to access its services without an invoice. No hackers went anywhere near the pipeline's network control infrastructure.
Thank you for giving us the full story !!
Source?
I looked it up out of curiosity - article named "Colonial Pipeline did pay ransom to hackers, sources now say." Love how all the politics surrounding the incident are "securing our energy supply from hacker attacks" and not "reconsidering the fact that entities with their own incentives control our energy in the first place."
Also, the billion different slightly different CNN articles I sifted through are ALL weirdly reticent to state the objectively true fact that this was merely an attack on the billing system and not something that would actually force operation to stop. Like, each one that shows up when you look up "colonial pipeline ransomware" and each article linked within those articles (which they do prodigiously) insists on vaguely gesturing at an attack and not specifying the ugly truth.
Thank you for pointing out how shitty capitalism is, just not sure it helps the point you think it helps.
I think the video is more pointing out that a hacking attack has already disrupted the economy once before and this would be another way to do so.
I think it's sad that the solution to a problem that is basically "I'm too lazy to go to the light switch and press on it" is "Let's built a giant sever farm that requires a massive building and takes megawatts of power so I can connect my light switch and a microphone to it, such that I can turn my light on with my voice." It's ridiculous. Smart home has a place, but it's not your light switch, and it's not connecting it to the internet, and most certainly not without a physical backup. It's nice in a large office building, and when the porter notices that there is still a light on in room 561, he can turn it off from his booth instead of running up 5 flights of stairs. Or for automatic temperature control. Locally, not with a giant cloud server, wasting bandwidth and capacity.
Better yet, why not just make a normal remote for it if the consumer is that lazy? (in terms of a household lightswitch, that is)
Thats not at all the point. Flipping a light switch has never been a problem. The reason that technologies like that are made is because we know how to do it and that's cool as fuck. People need something to do, and alot of people love inventing and building and marveling at other inventions, just for its own sake. Ofcourse its ridiculous, it's not like we invent stuff because we have to.
I disagree with this take.
And though I’m aware this may contain fallacies, the server farms are being made regardless of whether I buy a fancy lightbulb. I am not investing in these companies because I am lazy to flip a light switch. I already have half a dozen compatible devices that use the same network, and all they did was add one very small device to that network.
That infrastructure is being used for so much more and the lightbulb is not the sole cause for the creation of the infrastructure, it is a tiny addition to it.
Implying people are morally wrong for using a technology that simple that’s already built into tech they already use is not great.
this take makes no sense
cars influence people negatively not only because they are dangerous but also because they spend way more energy than the alternative you wouldn't be able to say that about the light switches in a way they can actually save power because you will never be too lazy to turn off the light and these servers are paying for power like everyone else and they are used by hundreds of thousands of people on top of that most lights that are controllable through voice are low power and run efficiently also they dont break as often. and if you actually look at humans or even physics everything is about convenience we always go towards the path of least friction its how we advanced as a species and how the universe works with the only difference being that humans have forethought and know that buying a light switch like that will momentarily be an inconvenience but in the long term will be beneficial
Love CGP, but he sometimes gets to high and mighty with technology and says things like this
Too*
Funny thing is, that at the same time he talks about how scared he is of the Super-intelligent AI. You know that thing that very well could be used to control an advanced traffic-system like he apparently wants?
Ostia, no me esperaba esto. Buenas talking vidya, suerte en lo tuyo
CGP: "humans need not apply"
2021: so......about that.....
"high and mighty"? Hi Tim!
One thing I will add is that skyways/subways for pedestrians CAN be beneficial in some circumstances. Like my native city has many of those because we frequently get to -10° F in the winter, which is nightmare to walk around in for more than a block at a time. It doesn’t make it good in all scenarios, but it does have its benefits
I sure appreciated it when I visited Calgary. Even in August that city can be miserable!
I live in Siberia. -30°C is ok here. Cleaning skyways/subways from the snow and dirt is a nightmare, draining is a tough task. Everyone knows how hard it is to use stairs in winter clothes (3-5 layers, volumous), head pieces and shoes. Moreover, it gets too hot inside the tunnel (underneath all the layers) and after you go outside sweaty you can easily catch a cold. Homeless people flood those spaces hiding from the frost making them untidy and unsafe.
The Problem with traffic nowadays is, that there are simply waaaaay too many cars. Trains would be the solution, I totally agree. But for example here in my country in Germany we are just busy destroying tracks, which have been there for ages, instead of modernising them. And of course we do, because this country is the b**** of the auto lobby D:
As greys video pointed out one the of the major bottlenecks with cars is humans. You cannot fix everything with trains. I live rural. There is never going to be a train or bus coming near me. Not everyone lives in the city. Some of us actually have to drive to the city, or face an even longer and more costly journey by train.
In France,The reverse is happening
It's sad how many disused, old tracks there are in Germany. Or the number of semaphores remaining in active use (even if I'm a fan of those personally, it's bizarre to have a major train station still featuring mechanical signals like it's 1928).
@@elporko523 Where In France do live ? Where I live trains are as bad as ever and no one is doing anything about it
@@datmedic2857 Central Paris
when I first saw cgpgrey's video I tried to expand the idea in my head and ended up at streetcars
Pedestrian overpasses are inconvenient because of the stairs.
Pedestrian underpasses are inconvenient because you might get stabbed half-way through.
we have a few options here. stairs, stabbing, jaywalking, mugging, hit by car, or cardio. I thought this through and honestly I think the underpass is the best, I hate fucking stairs and traffic.
@@goldenegg7447 but some underpasses need stairs as well
@@SobiDani stairs down to the highway so I can cross it easier
Ramps.
@@angeldude101 yeah but those need more space that sometimes you can't afford
The train is the final evolution of transport
but they still need rails
@@josejose-fu9dd Rails are a good thing. They keep the trains where they should be.
@@josejose-fu9dd And cars need roads. Your point? All transport needs infrastructure to support it.
Trains masterrace
What if we just traveled with ICBMs? Seems like a rational solution.
Well, making laws to push human friendly streets and avenues is a much better way to start solving the problem. Cars need it’s space and infrastructure, but so do we. Let’s make walking great again!
Turning every city block into an island, only connected through a car-as-a-service megacorp.
C'mon dude... Don't give the tech oligarchs any more crazy ideas.
Hey that could work, but how about following Barcelona's example and making them islands of 3x3 blocks? Would leave so much room for activities.
@@EmyrDerfel it's not the island part that's the issue. It's the megacorp part that's the issue.
@@TheMorMor if the island has enough stuff on it, you won't need to get involved with the megacorp at all.
@@EmyrDerfel @Emyr Derfel Sweden actually tried a thing like that in the 50/60ss in Stockholm during the so called record years (record growth, employment rates etc). It was called the miljonprogrammet ( a push to make the population of Stockholm over one million) it involved a major traffic rerouting, and the creation of so called ABC suburbs (Arbete,Bostad,Centrum Work,Housing,Center) which where to be fairly self containing I that there would be a limited need to commute outside of your suburb. Unfortunately the project didn't work out as well as intended.
It's is a very interesting story about social democracy, city planning and social engineering.
Adam should definitely look into it
"Hmm, sounds like a train."
That is, in fact, the top comment on grey's video
It is very much like a train, except a train where any specific "car" of the train (and its passengers) can split loose from the train at any one of dozens of points along any given route, and head in a different direction, often within seconds, and where the train can reach practically any destination in the city, without the need for expensive underground tunnels or thousands of additional stations.So, you know, pros and cons.
@@timogul You know it used to be common practice to separate parts of a train to let that car stop at a station that was too small for the entire train to stop at.
@@hedgehog3180 We should bring that back then. Make trains that can split off into groupings of maybe 4-6 seats each, and then each of those could split off every few hundred feet of track to head onto different lines without having to switch cars.
The problem with trains is that they are stuck in rails while cars or self driving cars can pretty much go anywhere onto specific areas.
As someone who works in automotive cybersecurity: Yes
I didn't even know that was a field.
I don't get his argument here about a hacker trying to get some cars to signal that they're gonna turn to get traffic to stop. You don't think everyone working on self-driving technology doesn't know this? That's why you make the car react to changes in its environment, and not try to interconnect them where it would be easy to hack. I don't see how it would be an issue if we're already designing self-driving systems to work independently.
@@omicron1100 A car that can react to it's environment but is not interlinked to the rest of traffic still has the flaws of reacting to the car ahead of them pulling forward. It reduces the gap but not in the way that CGP suggests of Simultaneous acceleration. The thing proposed in the CGP video would require an interlinked system, and thus would have that vulnerability.
That said, the hacking threat really isn't as big a deal as the simple issue of cars taking cities away from the people that live in them.
@@TurtleKnite Well, because they're computers, the gap can be reduced so finely that the end result *looks* simultaneous. They would be able to react more quickly and to more incoming objects and make predictions far faster than your average human driver. Honestly just the part about them not ever getting distracted is such an important feature that I think can't be understated.
@@omicron1100 The "Computers can react fast" thing ignores the fact that those computers are piloting physical mechanical objects with inertia using sensors that pick up physical information and noise.
Cars need a certain amount of time to begin to accelerate and to come to a stop. If a car begins to accelerate to match speed of the car in front of it the moment it detects any change, you're going to get a lot of false positives. You need certain tolerances before you start accelerating unless you have a certainty that the car in front of you is in fact accelerating and won't stop. The only way you can have that is if the cars are all networked, at least to the other cars in their immediate vicinity.
9:38 Actually, your proposed solution would also make driving better. So EVERYBODY wins
I dunno why, but the “how in the name of Christ will a pedestrian cross this?” part makes me lol every time.
Actually it makes me cringe everytime, because at intersections where many pedestrians want to cross we can simply set up traffic lights .. duh. Self-driving cars are by far superior even with traffic lights and it really annoys me how many people here and of course Adam Something is pretending that CGP Gray is some kind of pedestrian hater who would oppose that, without any basis for that.
PARKOUR
@@germanyoutubedeutschland9899 no, I meant that the way he presented it was funny. I agree that the whole cgp video was cringe, but Adam is pretty funny when shredding other content to pieces.
@A Fels You completely misunderstood my point. What you are describing is not good. You know that. I know that. Adam lets everyone know he knows. But GCP Gray knows that too, and he never said anything else. The allegations against him are completely ridiculous and do not reflect the statements in his video. For Adam, everyone who thinks self-driving cars are good is a pedestrian-hating monster, but the world is not that black and white.
You can see the advantages of self-driving cars and still stand up for traffic lights, that's what Adam and Moon Moon don't want to understand and therefore act like unreasonable children here.
@@germanyoutubedeutschland9899 ok so what happens when a pedestrian crosses on red? They're not steered by ai and will still make shitty choices. All the cars driven by AI will have to keep standing because of programming and in some countries that just means they'll be standing forever. I don't know à single person in Paris that actually waits for green
Seems to me like grey only focused on how you can change traffic as a solution, not what better ways there are.
I can't speak for him, but I never interpreted this as the best solution to human transport, but just to car traffic
Yes, but as the end of the video states, induced demand is a thing. If you encourage people to use self-driving car, they will use self-driving car, not buses,trams or subways. And if you will need to build parking slots, crossings, larger roads, etc. to compensate for this larger demand. All of tha will require money that will not be going into public transportation, so in the end, you're not solving the problem.
Also, even if we're only thinking about solving traffic, moving cars is still more effective than replacing them with self-driving cars.
Thank you for this. The first time I watched this I (as an AI student) thought it was brilliant. Years later and with more knowledge about urbanism and spatial planning I find it bizarre that I thought this was a good video. The points Grey presents are an ultimate techbro wet dream and for all other folks an urban hellscape.
I feel like the fact so many of us grew up with Data from Star Trek as our main reference point for what AI is like has done a lot of damage.
Every techbro is just an aspiring executive, who gets hard at the thought of selling people horrible technology at the cost of the environment, and exploiting labor to become wealthy enough to squash any attempts at pragmatic/functional solutions to problems.
@@CaeruleanWren generalizations is a dangerous path
You said it yourself: Grey's video is focused on the techbro aspects. It's about self-driving cars, not about urban planning. I can assure you that Grey's pretty much in team pedestrian/bike-friendly cities + public transport.
@@lonestarr1490yeah that's true, his cycling in London during lockdown were great.
You know, you don't need to hack self-driving cars, to cause problems. Just a few blown tires can achieve the same mess.
Hell you they even be able to identify things like caltrops or loose pins on the roads and identify them
@@jmurray1110 Two scenarios:
1. A guy with a BB gun off the side of the road, hiding in a bush - nobody would expect or detect that;
2. A guy walking along the road tossing things on it. The car will either not have time to detect it, or will swerve unexpectedly to the side, creating the possibility of a crash.
As someone who lives in Prague. Yes, that highway slammed in the centre of the city is a living nightmare to cross.
Funny thing is that Grey lives in London and bikes everywhere.
I don’t think he even owns a car
I mean, he doesn't need to ignore car problems or think just about benefits for himself rather than drivers just cause he isn't driving much
Yeah, just because he doesn't mention every single issue with cars, city design etc in a 4 minute video doesn't mean he doesn't know. He just looks at existing systems and what's wrong with them.
Is it possible that, having lived in a dense walkable city with public transit, he prefers cities where you can drive efficiently?
@@appa609 if that's the case, why does he continue to live in the parts of London that are not accommodating to cars?
The concept of fixing traffic by adding more of it reminds me of when I worked for a small defense subcontractor and had to act excited about exoskeletons to aid the military's effort to turn its soldiers and marines into pack animals who can haul around four hundreds pounds of equipment instead of just two hundred.
Our soldiers and marines are carrying too much s**t around? I know! We'll strap more s**t onto them that's super-heavy, adds moving parts and thus capacity for mechanical failure, and needs battery packs that weigh like the back end of a jeep.
Or we could just use a mule, which lives on stuff that grows naturally in a forest that can't be consumed by people and, in a pinch, is made of food.
Way too many people get their ideas about technology from manga and superhero movies. Does it look cool in a render? Then it's probably the worst possible solution to the problem.
We just have too many people who know nothing about reality
Instead of making things less human dependent they want them to be more human dependent
@@fitmotheyap the extreme case of "less human dependent" is "no humans at all". And neither mild nor extreme version of the statement is pertinent to the traffic problem, the because solution itself lies in humans using the best of their knowledge.
You're not thinking ahead, there's a reason why we're not using mules and shit to carry stuff, because it gets tired and can easily die. It shits too, can get out of control if shit hits the fan and if you're trying to be sneaky, the last thing you'd want is an animal going crazy. For heavy stuff we have vehicles but for stuff for infantry an exoskeleton is a great way to increase load and prevent them from getting tired. It's not possible for now but if everyone thinks like you, there'll be no planes today. Imagine thinking something is impractical even though it's still in its early stages. Exoskeleton can also protect, absorb recoil, increase your speed and increase endurance.
@@kai3732 the us military budget is so great they're inventing exo skeletons for the disabled so they can also help fight foreign wars XD
I'm in the engineering field and know just what you mean. Just because it can be made, doesn't mean it's the best solution.
The only use i see in self driving cars is in rural areas as an addition to the public transport, basically a shuttle or taxi service if you don't live near a train or bus so it can take you that last little bit. However we often already have shuttles and taxis so we don't even truly need them there
How would pedestrians cross the road? Be stepping inside their self-driving car, of course.
My brain made that joke as soon as he mentioned it. "Why, they'll just get in their own self-driving car, drive across the intersection, and get back out again. Simple!"
Then get lowered into an underground tunnel
No one would let autonomous cars loose on the road unless they were very safe. Safe enough that if a pedestrian randomly ran across the road. The issue would not be cars constantly going & never letting ppl cross rather ppl constantly walking out while not looking & cars having to wait for them. Ps the solution is to have all the solutions.
Jumping on cars
@@RB-eg7mj If cars stopped for every pedestrian, wouldn't that slow down traffic considerably, defeating the purpose of coordination?
I've witnessed "induced demand" happen. Back in the 1970s, the 210 Fwy, in the Los Angeles area was built. For a few years, traffic flow was great. But as people moved to take advantage of this freeway, it became more congested. By the late 80s, it was just as bad, as the older freeways. Same could be said for the 105 Fwy, which opened in late 1993. It just became congested quicker.
Whaaaaaaat. But everyone is moving away from California!! How could traffic get worse when everyone is leaving?! /s
What they neglect to say is that our population still increases every year because while yes, people are moving away, even more people are still moving in.
@@Crazy_Diamond_75 The fun part about that "everyone's moving out of california" rhetoric is that the data shows that the vast majority of californian migration is people moving from one part of california to another, and the number of people permanently moving out of the state is comparatively low.
@@girlmadeofwires LOL that's a great fun fact
I believe that a main part of CGP Grey's point is the optimization of driving and proving solutions while ignoring the real-life problems with it that are not directly related. By ignoring people walking, there is a more efficient solution.
Another example of how most people only think of additive solutions. They would rather add a 10000 dollar autonomous system to every single car, instead of using the much simpler and cheaper subtractive solution, to just not buy a car and build less roads.
It's easier to add onto an existing system rather than rebuild what you already have
This video, and commentators such as yourself, really seem to be missing the forest for the trees. I get that these comment sections are an echo chamber in general but can we please think holistically for a moment?
Realistically, are we going to abolish cars in the US anytime soon? Absolutely not. Should we build subways everywhere (the only practical way to currently isolate trains)? Absolutely not. Change in the real world happens incrementally.
More self-driving cars = less individual cars = the vast majority of us end up taking mass transit because we're cheap and lazy. Most people don't even want to actually learn to drive, we simply had to in the past in order to maximize individual efficiency at the time. Now that automated solutions exist, it is time to transition; it just won't happen overnight.
The entire video seems to completely ignore the fact that pedestrians are a problem for trains even more so than the average vehicle. Can a train deviate from its tracks to dodge a pedestrian? We have a solution for this... let me introduce you to the concept of the overhead crosswalk. Am I saying cars are the solution? Never. It's just that however harmful one thinks CGP Grey's perspective is (which is semi-fair), this video is *far* more toxic.
@@Kittoes0124 Trains have clear and distinct line of track, usually fenced/walled off in urban centre or grade seperated entirely. Cars follow a vague area we call a road, with the only things protecting pedestrians and motorists being a curb raised 5 inches, paint, and the sanity of everyone involved. Now keep in mind that a train might come once every 15 minutes and are clearly visible (most times) from a far distance, while roads can move dozens of cars per minute and often block your sight of other cars. It's obvious which one is safer.
P.S. can you explain how automated driving will create less drivers, that feels countert intuitive.
@@abdisaniini Yeah exactly. There is a huge list of reasons why trains absolutely suck for inner city traffic needs. Requiring specialized infrastructure that doesn't play well with other technologies being chief among them. Pretending that we can replace all, or even most, cars with trains is just silly. Anyone who claims that we're not always* going to have both clearly has an agenda or hasn't paid attention to history.
Best we can do is minimize the impact of each individual car while simultaneously encouraging as much ride-sharing as possible. The former is already being tackled, although it has always been heavily encumbered by the self-interest of the auto industry (including Tesla). Doesn't matter how much they drag their heels though, progress always wins in the long term. The latter could only be accomplished by enacting public policies that give people incentive to change. Subsidies for those that choose to use some form of public transportation or ride sharing is one option. Alternatively, we could go the punitive route and tax car owners at a much higher rate than we do now, but that'd realistically just punish the poor. Time is the most important commodity of all; so another option would be to prioritize ride-sharing traffic to such a degree (think along the lines of HoV lanes, but get more creative and draconian) that it becomes the obvious choice to anyone that values their time more than the act of driving.
Having more self-driving cars on the road means that we'll actually need less cars on the road. This is a bit counter-intuitive until one starts to ponder just how much time the average car spends parked. The primary reason for this is that a human operator is required. Self-driving cars would spend the vast majority of their time in transit because every minute spent in park is potentially lost profit. Even if we fail to enact public policy that encourages individuals to give up their personal vehicles, the profit motive will be enough for a lot of people to "employ" their car as a cabbie. Getting a ride will be dirt cheap, and the many many people who currently struggle with a car payment just so that they can work will happily shift.
*Obviously, until something revolutionary happens; such as the discovery of a way to get around the no cloning theorem.
@@Kittoes0124 So you want people to be coalesced into a fleet of moving vehicles that requires minimal rider input and never parks, along with dedicated lanes to fast track them around an urban centre, and gains profit via increased ridership? Congratulations! You just invented a bus! In some cities busses already have dedicated fast lanes, such as in Toronto. There are already a myriad of apps that help people pick the most efficient route, and most comfortable route, meaning even the most braindead person just has to follow what their phone says and they'll reak h. Busses (should) arrive at each stop, at the same time, each day, meaning they can easily be worked into schedules, and since they have trained experienced drivers, it also doesn't need a single input from the rider except for maybe a "hello" when you get on and a "thank you" when you get off. You can pay via a monthly, annual, or distance based subscription depending on the municipality, with a discount for youth, students, and the elderly. And you know the best part? All of this is publicly owned! Meaning your taxes actually go to something that's useful and actually makes a diffrence! And hey, if it does make a profit, that means your municipality more money to play with, to improve the service. Not to mention all the benefits they get by having government information at their finger tips. If your busses runs via gas, or batteries, you get a flexible vehicle that can travel around debris or roads under construction. If it's run via electrical overhead cable, you get to feel good inside knowing your not supporting toxic lithium mines and slaves mining cobalt in the Congo. And if that's not enough for you, just call a taxi.
I can't believe I'm addicted to urban planning and public transportation videos.
Same. If you told me a month ago that I would unironically laugh at a meme about a trolleybus, I wouldn't have believed you. Guess it's good to learn about though, as we definitely shouldn't allow the mistakes of the 50s/60s to happen again.
Have you guys seen Donoteat01 yet? He is the absolute guru of cynical urban planning analyses.
Haven't seen him yet. Looks like he is not very active but I'll definitely take a look at his stuff sometime.
@@NavidIsANoob haha. He's how I got roped in :D
@@pedrototolo8027 He has a busy life probably. But his channel is a goldmine of information. It's great.
As someone that works in Machine Learning, easy public transportation is definitely much higher ROI
Especially if cities such as New York and Boston have implemented bus rapid transit systems and made building new railway tracks mostly unnecessary, no?
@@aycc-nbh7289 I wouldn't say buses made railway tracks absolute since we're planning a new one currently.
I agree with mostly everything you said, but about self driving cars being hackable by China using quantum computers, if that actually happened we would have WAY bigger issues than the cars being hacked. Think everything that uses the internet, anything classified, would be vulnerable to the attacker. Also, the hacking crippling economies argument also applies to public transit.
Trains are the crabs of transit evolution
Crab race master race
Time for carcinisation 🦀
It is time for Crab.
There are just some solutions that are very good solutions
3:08 I'd have a minor heart attack if I were to sit on the passager seat in a self-driving car with that tight of a system, no thank you.
Yeah, leaves a very small margin of error - insufficient reaction time to break (even for a machine) if a new obstacle appears ahead. Adam Something focussed on cyber attacks, but what if something as simple as a fault occurred. eg: Automated cars speeding through the intersection from 4 directions, one of their brakes fail and hit another... cars behind them don't have time to react.. cars coming from other directions don't have time to react to the sudden pile-up. No thanks, I prefer my driving systems to have a large margin for error built in!
As a person who would directly benefit in every way from more trains, I really appreciate this channel.
I think the first point is wrong. You can still have a crosswalk with a button. It just tells the automatic cars that I’m crossing and you need to stop. It just means that we don’t need lights to communicate and instead every car knows what’s happening all the time.
And if it malfunctions? You may die and nobody will be responsible
6:00 it's really good to see someone who doesn't appear to have a background specifically in cyber security recognizing this for the threat that it is. "put computers in everything!" is not a good solution
... except that quantum computers won't break into our cryptosystems by the time we'll be able to make cooperative self-driving cars, because lots of post-quantum algorithms already developed today and being developed further and already gaining adoption. Symmetric crypto is already invulnerable to quantum computers, add to that some post-quantum asymmetric algorithm for key exchange (like NTRU-KE) and you are all set on encryption side.
Bad engineering however is much more likely to cause problems. Complex systems have more points of failure and one mistake can make it broken, and because of lots of moving parts, mistakes can remain hidden until some specific conditions are met (like a cyclist on the other lane wearing salmon T-shirt, and it's simultaneously sunny and raining, and a gusty wind blowing at your back. Good luck testing for that).
Say's the guy using a computer 🤣😂🤣👌👍👌
@@hotrodhunk7389 you're not being serious, right? now's your chance to say no
@@pavlus34 nowhere in my post did I use the word quantum, or imply that I was referring to quantum computing.
better planned cities > making millions of dangerous machines depend on computers.
thanks for playing!
@@pavlus34 Just something to be aware of: When you build systems that need to be robust you will typically intentionally make various subsystems fail and return bullshit during development. SISO (Shit in, Shit out) is a common and old problem in computer systems, but when you engineer for robustness you build and test scenarios where you put in 'shit'. Specifically most self driving car solutions have a two parallel systems, the normal self driving one, and another that's only concerned with 'if the first fails, what's the safest way to stop everything'. The hard thing is to know when the first failed, and that's why recognizing 'shit' is so incredibly important, but for that you also combine lots of parallel systems, from using different sensors (if the mismatch between sensors is too great you failed), from validating against 'memory' (if the road looks completely different from last week *and* the sensor certainty is low... you probably failed), from communicating with other cars (if the things other cars are communicating mismatch with what your sensors are telling you... you probably failed), etc. The point is, when you program systems like this you *assume* mistakes, you *assume* failures, and all you need to achieve is that at the end of the day you're safer than a human.