Because AI driving management systems can cause a 40% reducing in-vehicle delay times, as well as also being used to take taxi, fast food, and delivery jobs, policy “Driverless Car Laws” Should lower Congestion/ Gridlock, and ease the Gig Economy malice (because it takes these jobs an automates them). At the cost of much larger malice to unemployment, which would counter it being an overpowered policy. Thoughts?
3 Likes
That would be a nice effect. I remember CGP Grey made a video on the topic. I however wonder if driverless cars would increase alcohol consumption
Ha, good points. Pus also although road deaths would go down (fewer accidents), arguably obesity woud go up because people walk less, cycle less, and dont even hold a wheel or use pedals in a car!
Eh, I feel like effects on Obesity are gonna be negligible. People aren’t gonna change much how much they drive, just because their cars are now driverless.
However, what might change is certain behaviors:
People can now effectively do anything they could do while sitting or lying down, even while their driverless car is driving. Like, they can sleep or work or chat with each other while facing each other…
It’s hard to predict what the net effect of that might be, but arguably that would actually boost health a tiny bit (non-sleep), and also productivity maybe? (work while in transit - kinda like what many people do on international flights today)
It’d definitely also reduce Gig Economy because one of the most obvious parts of that is stuff like Uber, which then would rely almost entirely on an automated fleet if I had to guess.
I made some changes today. I added an effect for retired, because it seems to be there are a lot of elderly people who are either unable to drive, or would prefer not to (failing eyesight, slow reactions), who would LOVE a super-cheap way of being driven automatically places…
I think the obesity effect is partly peole just snoozing / eating crisps and watching netfix in a car instead of driving and using the pedals/wheel etc, and partly because if the cost of a car journey is way less than a manned-taxi, then people will walk/cycle less and get robo-taxis more.
I mean I guess the chips eating is fair enough, but I very much doubt using pedals/wheel qualifies even remotely as a workout.
Maybe in an actual race, where you go to the limits of your car. A little bit. But for regular traffic? No way. - Since people today tend to be under-rested, snoozing in your car actually would likely count towards health boost, not Obesity increase.
It’s also not clear to me that a robo-taxi would be that insanely much cheaper. But fair enough, that could be reasonably argued to cause Obesity.
Although you probably should just model that by Bike Usage. It directly reduces bike usage and therefore the two Biking policies (Subsidies and Camping) simply ought to get less effective all around.
Also, if those two policies don’t already, they probably ought to tackle Obesity too.
Does the list of new effects of Driverless cars include increased car usage? 'cause car usage increases obesity already.
Indeed!
Yes good point. I removed any obesity link, and also rejigged the car->obesity equation so it only goes in one direction.
1 Like
Considering the fact that some Tesla Cars exploded and others in beta self-drive mode killed people, perhaps over-automation in vehicles could lead to an event where an automated car kills some people (here the teething issues of this technology means the death of people, or atleast the potential death of people). This would allow the state to regulate them as well. Or it could be just a negative outcome of too much automation by itself. What do you think Cliff?