> Is there a single developed economy that doesn't make significant use of trucks and cars?

You do not even need to restrict it to developed economies. Every city (even not very large ones) I have been to around the world, developed or not, has streets lots of cars: London, Manchester, Paris, Nairobi, Colombo, Madras, Bangalore, Sydney, Singapore..... and smaller towns and rural areas in those countries too. Those cover a pretty wide range of quality of public transport too.

Depends on your population density. Tokyo does pretty well with purely public transport. There’s still cars of course, but you don’t use them for travel into the city proper if you don’t hate yourself.

> Tokyo does pretty well with purely public transport. There’s still cars of course, but you don’t use them for travel into the city proper if you don’t hate yourself

Japan has .67 vehicles per person, almost 80% America's .85 [1] and above many European countries. They travel about a fifth as many miles per capita as America [2]. But again, four fifths and a fifth. Nowhere close to zero.

There isn't a developed economy that wouldn't see a significant quality-of-life improvement from self-driving cars.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territor...

[2] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar4.htm

Hence why I’m talking about Tokyo. Not Japan. Living in the countryside basically requires a car by definition. People also often have a car, but don’t use it that much. Maybe you’ll get more interesting numbers if you compare miles traveled per person?

Found only for 1997, but increases the discrepancy to 1:2.5 : https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar4.htm

> I’m talking about Tokyo. Not Japan

Tokyo would have a tough time existing in a world without cars, trucks or roads. Its economy depends on that access.

There is no tradeoff between self-driving cars and a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure rebuild.

> Tokyo would have a tough time existing in a world without cars, trucks or roads. Its economy depends on that access.

I will agree with that statement but mostly because you added trucks in when the original complaint was about car dependency.

Way to miss the point. Yes, it is known that the "NASA space pen" was not really funded by NASA, but but its development still took millions of dollars in R&D.

> Is there a single developed economy that doesn't make significant use of trucks and cars?

For the 127th time: car dependency is not the same as car usage.

> its development still took millions of dollars in R&D

$1mm at the time, $10mm today. They sold for the equivalent of $30 each in today's money and saved manned spaceflight from having to deal with graphite shards in the air and electrical.

> car dependency is not the same as car usage

"If the richest country in the world" got "rid of its car dependency," we'd still want safer cars.

> we'd still want safer cars

With the technology controlled by a handful of corporations? At an development cost that will force them to create any and every opportunity to seek rent on your mobility?

Yes, it would be better if the good thing were more perfect.

Nice rhetorical trick. It's not a matter of "more perfect".

The bad outweighs the good, plain and simple, and only those who are extremely naive or stand to gain from it refuse to acknowledge it.

The bad things you describe as side effects already exist. So adding in good is... good. However you rate the current situation.

Isn't that already the status quo?