There is a concern that focusing on technological advancements may distract us from addressing a more fundamental issue: reducing our reliance on cars. After years of prioritizing automobiles in the US transportation system, we are now facing the negative consequences such as pollution, traffic, accidents, urban sprawl, and limited alternative transportation options. The solution to these problems may involve not only using different types of vehicles but also reimagining a world with less dependence on cars. Author Peter Norton discusses the history of unmet promises from car manufacturers and tech companies claiming to offer solutions to reduce our reliance on cars in his new book, prompting a reflection on the risks and benefits of placing faith in technology. Radio waves, highway engineering, transistors, and technology adapted from targeted bombs were all proposed as ways to create a perfect automobile society after World War II. Norton explained that while these technologies were not fully developed, the goal was to allow everyone to drive anywhere, anytime, park for free, and eliminate crashes. However, these technologies did not succeed, and Norton is skeptical that driverless cars will either. He believes that the belief that high tech is always better is flawed. Many driverless car proponents also acknowledge that the technology will not be ready for widespread use for many years. Our health and the health of the planet could see major improvements by transitioning to electric vehicles, which are a key topic at the global climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland. Removing error-prone drivers from the equation could also enhance road safety. However, simply improving cars is not a complete solution. While promoting electric vehicles, there is a potential risk of reinforcing dependence on cars, as discussed by my colleague Farhad Manjoo in the New York Times Opinion. Driverless vehicles could potentially lead to an increase in the number of miles driven, worsening traffic congestion and urban sprawl. Despite promises from services like Uber to reduce congestion and decrease the amount of driving done by Americans, they actually had the opposite effect. Moving forward, the transportation industry should focus on developing safer and more energy-efficient vehicles. However, it is also important to invest in making walking, cycling, and using shared transportation options more affordable and appealing. Norton is discussing a concept that may seem unrealistic, resembling something Greta Thunberg would come up with. The car is seen as a crucial convenience that has significantly impacted our lives, making it challenging, expensive, and controversial to shift our dependence away from it. However, there are compelling reasons to make the effort, as the current transportation system is hazardous, environmentally harmful, and consumes a significant amount of public resources. The car has been the centerpiece of American society for many years. It was a decision that was sometimes debated, but now we had the option to choose a different direction. Norton suggested considering what would happen if a portion of the large amount of money being used to develop driverless cars was instead invested in practical products and policy changes. He proposed ideas such as changing zoning laws to allow for more housing to be built near stores, schools, and workplaces to reduce the need for excessive driving. He also highlighted the benefits of bicycles and electric railways that do not rely on batteries, stating that they provide more positive impact than any driverless car technology. Speaking with Norton made me think about the pros and cons of innovation. We understand that technology enhances our quality of life. However, we are also aware that placing too much faith in technology can prevent us from addressing the underlying issues causing our problems. © 2021 The New York Times Company.