There is a concern that focusing on technological advancements may distract us from addressing a more fundamental issue: reducing our reliance on cars. Over the years, the United States has prioritized automobiles in transportation planning, leading to negative consequences such as air pollution, traffic congestion, and urban sprawl. Simply switching to different types of cars may not be enough to solve these problems; we may need to rethink our dependence on cars altogether. Peter Norton, a history professor at the University of Virginia, has highlighted the history of failed promises from car manufacturers and tech companies about inventions that could alleviate our reliance on cars. Technologies such as radio waves, divided highway engineering, transistors, and repurposed technology from targeted bombs were all proposed as ways to create an automobile utopia after World War II. According to Norton, these technologies aimed to allow anyone to drive anywhere, anytime, park for free, and eliminate crashes. However, these ideas were never fully realized, and Norton is skeptical that driverless cars will be any different. He believes the success of such technology relies on the assumption that high tech is always superior, which he disagrees with. This sentiment is shared by many, including driverless-car optimists who now acknowledge that widespread adoption of the technology is still many years away. Our health and the planet's health would greatly benefit from transitioning to electric cars, a key topic at the global climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland. Removing error-prone drivers could also enhance road safety. However, solely improving cars is not a complete solution. Encouraging the use of electric vehicles may lead to a continued reliance on cars, as noted by my New York Times Opinion colleague Farhad Manjoo. Driverless cars could potentially lead to an increase in the number of miles driven, exacerbating issues with traffic and urban sprawl. While Uber and similar services initially claimed to reduce congestion and decrease overall driving distances, they had the opposite effect. Moving forward, the focus should be on developing safer and more energy-efficient vehicles. However, it is also important to invest in promoting more affordable and appealing options such as walking, cycling, and shared transportation. Norton is discussing a concept that may seem like a fantasy created by Greta Thunberg. The car provides a significant level of convenience but transitioning away from reliance on it will be challenging, expensive, and controversial. However, there are valid reasons to make this transition as the current transportation system is hazardous, environmentally damaging, and consumes a large amount of public space and government funding. The car-centric infrastructure in the U.S. has been developed over many years. It was a decision, sometimes controversial, that we could now choose a different direction. Norton proposed considering what could happen if some of the excessive money being used for driverless cars was instead invested in simpler products and policy adjustments. He suggested altering zoning regulations to allow more housing to be built in close proximity to stores, schools, and offices to reduce the need for constant driving. Norton also pointed out that bicycles and electric railways, which do not rely on batteries, are technological wonders that can have a greater positive impact than driverless car technology. Speaking with Norton made me reflect on the pros and cons of innovation. We understand that technology enhances our lives, yet we acknowledge that placing too much faith in technology can prevent us from addressing the underlying issues causing our problems. © 2021 The New York Times Company.