The problem is excessive euphoria towards technology

In 2018, Johan Jungwirth, then Volkswagen's chief digital officer, defined the future of the car as follows: “Autonomous driving will soon become a reality. The question is no longer if and when, but rather: where? And in 2021, after three and a half years, we will do it.” […] Using self-driving cars without steering wheels in coordination with municipalities. Then blind people, sick people and children can drive on their own.”

One of the biggest problems with the transition to mobility is excessive euphoria towards technology and the desire to move forward. I can even understand both. The attitude of always linking progress with moving forward is already evident in the Word at the end. Additionally, success has always been associated with more of the same. It is certainly good that this technology will appear soon which will miraculously solve all the problems.

I find myself wondering how the status quo of the car persists without question even among many self-driving believers. I miss the ability to pause, I miss the big plan, the systematic thinking, the risk of doing some things less and not doing some things at all. I promised that self-driving vehicles would make things safer for me, too. But I don't want car traffic to keep coming into my mind everywhere and taking up space for me to move around and stay. I also wonder how the transition process should be designed if the top third can drive independently, but not everyone. I see this as a complete disaster for everyone outside of cars.

Continuation of the same thing

Take a look at why autonomous vehicles are being used: staff shortages and costs. Naturally, we are missing people in the system – especially those who provide much-needed alternatives to cars. but! Could this be a reason to use self-driving vehicles? Is this really a real plan or just a continuation of the same thing? Can we reliably solve accessibility, safety and affordability issues with these vehicles? Or, despite all our enthusiasm, we did not even think about the fact that we also had to make major changes to the system.

In his text “The Illusory Promise of the Robotaxi,” activist Raoul Krauthausen once again addresses the problem of inaccessibility in this technological hype. It demands that: “New technologies must be integrated within a socially responsible and inclusive framework and meet ethical and practical requirements. For a journey to be truly inclusive, all phases of the journey, as well as traffic and cityscapes, must be accessible to people with cognitive, developmental, visual, hearing and motor disabilities.”

In many places I miss the big picture of a place where the use of technologies meets stated goals: increasing ridership, dramatically reducing the number of cars, establishing climate- and socially just mobility, and keeping ethical standards in mind.

Because – I don't know how you feel – it is important for me that when such a system is created, the so-called Vision Zero plays a final role, that is, the will not to accept traffic victims. Are the details you mentioned guaranteed at every stage of development? Who is responsible for the mistakes made by such vehicles? Manufacturer, operator, country (and therefore us)?

With many technical innovations, after a while there was a so-called rebound effect, as was the case with the construction of motorways: any initial comfort across the new lanes was quickly lost because after a short time all these sections were used up. Also look for Brace's paradox. We must do everything we can to implement the changes that are actually possible immediately so that we can shape the transformation of mobility even if autonomous driving takes years.