There is a concern that focusing on technological advancements may distract us from addressing the bigger issue of reducing our reliance on cars. For years, the United States has prioritized automobiles in transportation planning, leading to problems like air pollution, traffic congestion, and lack of alternative transportation options. Simply switching to different types of cars may not be enough to solve these issues; we may need to fundamentally change our reliance on cars. A new book by Peter Norton highlights the history of unfulfilled promises from car manufacturers and tech companies claiming to offer solutions to our car dependency issues. After World War II, various technologies such as radio waves, divided highway engineering, transistors, and repurposed technology from targeted bombs were proposed as ways to create an automobile utopia where anyone could drive anywhere, anytime, and park for free without any crashes. However, these technologies were often incomplete, and the idea behind them did not come to fruition. Norton expressed skepticism about the success of driverless cars, stating that the belief in high tech being superior technology is flawed. Many driverless car enthusiasts now agree that the technology is not yet ready for widespread use on the roads and will take many more years to develop. Our well-being and the health of the planet stand to benefit greatly from transitioning to electric vehicles, which is one of the main topics of discussion at the global climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland. Removing error-prone drivers from the equation could also lead to safer roads. However, improving cars alone is not a complete solution. There is a concern that promoting electric vehicles could further solidify our reliance on cars, as mentioned by my colleague Farhad Manjoo in The New York Times Opinion. Driverless cars could potentially lead to an increase in the number of miles driven, exacerbating issues with traffic and urban sprawl. While advancements in transportation should focus on safety and energy efficiency, it may also be beneficial to invest in promoting more affordable and attractive options such as walking, cycling, and shared transportation. The topic of Norton's discussion may seem like something imagined by Greta Thunberg. The automobile is a transformative convenience, and transitioning away from it will be challenging, expensive, and controversial. However, there are compelling reasons to attempt this change. The current transportation system is hazardous, environmentally harmful, and consumes significant public resources. It took many years to develop the United States with the car as the center of transportation. It was a decision, sometimes a controversial one, that we had the option to make a different choice. Norton suggested considering what would happen if some of the excessive money being used for driverless car development was instead invested in simpler products and policy adjustments. He proposed changing zoning laws to allow more homes to be built in close proximity to stores, schools, and offices to reduce the need for driving. Norton also highlighted the benefits of bicycles and electric railways that do not rely on batteries as technologies that can have a greater positive impact than driverless car software. This conversation with Norton made me reflect on the pros and cons of innovation. We are aware of the fact that technology enhances our lives. However, we also acknowledge that putting too much faith in technology can prevent us from addressing the underlying issues causing our problems. © 2021 The New York Times Company.