There is a concern that focusing on technological advancements may distract us from addressing a fundamental issue: reducing our reliance on cars. For years, the United States has prioritized cars in transportation planning, leading to negative consequences such as pollution, traffic, and limited alternative transportation options. Addressing these problems may require not just using different types of cars, but also reimagining a world with less dependence on them. The author has been reflecting on the balance of benefits and risks associated with technological solutions, inspired by Peter Norton's book on the history of unfulfilled promises to address car dependency through innovation. After World War II, various technologies such as radio waves, highway engineering, transistors, and repurposed technology from bombs were proposed as ways to create an ideal world of automobiles by allowing anyone to drive anywhere, anytime, and park for free without accidents. However, these technologies were not successful in achieving this vision, and there are doubts that driverless cars will be able to do so either. Many now believe that high-tech solutions are not necessarily superior, and even the most optimistic supporters of driverless cars admit that the technology is still years away from being widely used on the roads. Our well-being and the environment will see a major boost if we transition 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. The widespread adoption of electric vehicles could potentially reinforce our reliance on cars, as noted by my colleague Farhad Manjoo in his New York Times Opinion piece. Driverless vehicles could lead to an increase in the number of miles driven, potentially worsening traffic congestion and urban sprawl. Similar promises made by Uber and other services to reduce congestion and decrease driving miles ended up having the opposite effect. Moving forward, transportation advancements should focus on creating safer and more energy-efficient cars. However, it is also important to consider investing in making walking, cycling, and using shared transportation more affordable and attractive options. Norton is discussing a concept that may seem unrealistic, similar to something Greta Thunberg would propose. The car has become an essential convenience in our lives, and shifting away from it will be a challenging, expensive, and divisive task. However, it is necessary to reconsider our reliance on cars, as the current transportation system is hazardous, environmentally harmful, and consumes significant public resources. The United States has been built around the car over many years. It was a decision, sometimes a debated one, that we had the option to make a different choice. Norton suggested considering what would occur if a portion of the extravagant funds used for developing autonomous vehicles was instead invested in practical products and policy modifications. He proposed adjusting zoning regulations to allow for more residential development near commercial areas, schools, and offices in order to reduce the need for constant driving. Norton also highlighted the benefits of bicycles and electric trains that do not rely on batteries as technological advancements that can have a greater positive impact than driverless car technology. Conversing with Norton made me think about the pros and cons of innovation. We understand that technology enhances our lives. 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.