Congratulations on solving the problem of people not being able to drive their vehicles to their destination of choice by preventing them from driving their vehicles to their destination of choice.
Next: Solving hunger using stomach removal surgery.
That is why American society is so car-centric.
The problem elsewhere is usually "how can people travel from A to B", not "how can people drive their cars from A to B".
..and "Disallow private vehicles.." enables people to travel how?
Here's a clue for you: People wanting to drive places in cars isn't a USA thing; it's a worldwide thing, due to a number of fundamental practical differences between driving in one's own car and using public transport of any type.
Disallow private vehicles on the city streets from 6am to 6pm. Build massive parking lots outside the city center, and put in collective traffic stops and enough buses to transport people. Problem solved, can we get on with exploring out space now?
Congratulations on solving the problem of people not being able to drive their vehicles to their destination of choice by preventing them from driving their vehicles to their destination of choice.
Next: Solving hunger using stomach removal surgery.
"That would save billions or trillions of dollars per year probably." And put a lot of people out of a job, don't forget that. Every time you make a system too efficient, you reduce the number of workers but with economies it's important to have as many people working as possible. So you're stuck trying to balance efficiency with employment.
That must be why we subsidise the manufacture of buggy-whips and break all the windows every year to keep the glaziers in business, right?
It's not unethical to profit from the fruits of your labor. It is unethical to profit from the fruits of other people's labor, if you don't assign their fair share for their labor to them.
How do you define 'fair' other than both parties agreeing about the share? Foxconn and each of the employees reached an agreement about pay, as did Apple and Foxconn, and each iPhone buyer and Apple. Your, my, or Bob down the road's opinions have nothing to do with it.
Probably the most important advancement currently being pursued is self-driving cars.
"Most important advance"?
You think it's more important to be able to text in your front seat on the way to work or to not have to put $50 in the gas tank every morning?
The real point of self-driving cars is NOT to allow people to Facebook or whatever in their own cars while driving to work.
It's to allow taxis to operate at much the same cost per journey as a private, passenger-driven car. Cheap taxis would solve a fair number of the problems caused by 'car dependence', what happens to the people who cannot drive for whatever reason.
The main difference is cultural expectations about car size.
No, the main difference is legislation: http://jalopnik.com/cafe/ Cultural expectations are a result, not a cause. Purchase of the government by lobbyists built the laws, society simply conforms.
Incorrect. Although CAFE regulations created the SUV, American cars have been much larger than European cars since well, almost forever. Look at the Ford lineup (to continue my previous example) available in the early '60s (before CAFE) in the USA vs. the UK. The 1962 Ford Zodiac, the largest Ford in the UK in 1962, was 4.6m long and had a 2.5L I6. A '62 Galaxie in the USA was 5.3m long with engines from 3.7L to 7.0L.
Because the truth is that American cars are much bigger, heavier, and generally safer than European cars. Numerous, (rather popular!) European cars that get excellent fuel economy (better than 40 MPG) simply cannot be imported because they'd miserably fail the crash tests.
To be sold in America, new cars must have a crash cage around the passenger compartment, around which are various crumple zones that absorb impact and improve passenger safety. Crash cages, by design, must be very strong in order to prevent passengers from getting crushed by stupid amounts of energy. This makes them heavy, and that makes it darn hard to get decent fuel economy, especially in stop & go traffic. (weight isn't nearly as much of a penalty on freeways, particularly on flat ground, though hills steep enough to require braking on the downhill runs can get rather inefficient rather quickly)
Bullshit. All cars sold in Europe follow safety standards equivalent to those in North America, and have had 'crash cages' for nearly 50 years.
The main difference is cultural expectations about car size. As an example, the Ford Focus, what Americans consider to be a 'small' car, has 2 models smaller than it in Europe (the Ka and the Fiesta), and the Focus is considered here in the UK to be a 'medium' sized family car. The Ford Mondeo, very similar to the Fusion in the USA, is considered to be 'large'. Ford do not sell a larger car than the Mondeo in Europe.
Engine size expectations are similar. Here a 2.0L I4 is considered a normal, reasonably powerful engine. An 'economy' car would have a 1.4 or a 1.6. A 3.0L V6 would be considered a 'fast car' here. V8s are almost unheard of.
Amusingly European cars generally have faster top speeds than American cars, despite the smaller engines. Some years ago I took an American on a road trip (along with other people) and he was amazed that my 1.8L Ford Escort could achieve 135mph. Here if a V6 can't get to at least 150mph it's considered to be a bit crap.
Familiar with Branson's previous shenanigans, I must wonder: does he intend to impregnate all the women before they leave for / on the way to Mars?
A trait that is a must for any real spacefarer!
"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson
