Error
  • Error loading component: com_moofaq, 1
  • Error loading component: com_moofaq, 1
  • Error loading component: com_moofaq, 1
  • Error loading component: com_moofaq, 1
  • Error loading component: com_moofaq, 1
  • Error loading component: com_moofaq, 1
  • Error loading component: com_moofaq, 1
  • Error loading component: com_moofaq, 1
  • Error loading component: com_moofaq, 1
Yes you can make cars collision proof but it is much less expensive to redesign our cities with built in transportation to any portion of the city, just as elevators are used in large buildings instead of a separate cubical operated by each person with a separate motor. These elevators transport millions of people each year without accidents or collisions.

In the interim you can put sensors on cars to diminish accidents. They can be driven by electrical motors that put the brakes on before hitting something. The sensor can help maintain a safe distance between cars but the cost would be enormous and detract from conservation of resources and the real solutions that could be worked on. This intermediary approach would be inefficient and more costly compared to redesigning the transportation system in an environment that includes this in the overall design. This type of thinking merely prolongs a more efficient system. Tying to patch up this technical infrastructure that we have is wasteful, detrimental and in the long requires more energy.

To a certain extent moving people from one place to another is considered in the overall design of modern airports with conveyers and automated trains that takes one anywhere in the airport without accidents.

Either we take on the job of conserving resources or face the consequences. It is not only the problem of accidents with cars but take for instance the mammoth undertaking they did in Boston to tunnel under the ground for more highways. It is a ridiculous and costly approach that ultimately does not take care of the problem. Also the inefficiency of the situation when there is an accident on a busy highway and people are stopped for miles. This could be true even with sensors in cars when there are other technical problems with individual cars that cause the accidents.

There are many laws for cars on the highway and when one violates the laws there is another extremely costly system in place to penalize people. All this has to be taken into account for the cost of the automobiles. There are no laws for the speed or operation of elevators that the users are confronted with. Laws are merely to deal with technical inefficiency.

The reason that Jacque redesigned the cities is that he took all the detrimental factors into account to start with. He started by designing cars that were safer but realized that was not the answer. Even suggesting that we can patch this system is putting the brakes on.

After WWII there was a good opportunity to redesign cities and solve the transportation problems but we put up the same type of inefficient infrastructures. This will demonstrate the problem with our thinking process. We have to rethink our planning and update our cities to comply with new advances in technology. It shows you how hard it is to get an overview of our social designs and pose the right questions.

We do not need to try and patch up an old established culture but we need a new type of thinking to create an ever changing emergent culture. It is dangerous and inappropriate to dwell on trying to make this system more efficient and it is actually condescending to people to perpetuate the same kind of thinking and limiting factors that got us into this mess. The nation that has no vision for the future will be surpassed by those that do. It is not really an "intermediate bridge" when you hold people and technology back by trying to make inefficient changes that only serve to delay social advances. I put John Perkins in this same category trying to make this system work (and ethical) when it is responsible for creating the problems in the first place.