View Poll Results: Should prototype vehicles that drive themselves be allowed on public roads?

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    32 68.09%
  • Only with someone in the driver's seat

    8 17.02%
  • Maybe

    0 0%
  • No

    7 14.89%
  • I don't know

    0 0%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 37 of 37

Thread: Self-driving Vehicles

  1. #31
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,073

    Re: Self-driving Vehicles

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I'm more concerned about what is best for society, rather than who I can sue. I would gladly support giving immunity to auto manufacturers for these kind of lawsuits, if it reduced the number of auto fatalities. And that isn't even considering the wealth of other societal benefits that self-driving cars will bring: Reduction in commute times, reduction in pollution, increase in parking space, eliminating the need for personal car ownership for most people, and a complete paradigm shift in the way that we design cities. That is HUGE, and is vastly more important than you being able to sue someone..
    I am sure society can benefit more if we banned free speech, the right to bear and a whole bunch of other rights/freedoms and privileges. However the few who misuse those things does not justify banning people from those rights/freedoms and, privileges.The few who get into accidents does not justify big government or big business taking away your ability to drive.



    40,000 people die each year, and many hundreds of thousands more are seriously injured. That's over a dozen 9/11s every year that self-driving cars will eventually be able to prevent.
    There are 193,552,000 licensed drivers in the US. Those 40,000 a year does not justify denying everyone else the ability to drive. What is that about .002 percent of drivers? You are saying that you want to take 99.998% of all the other peoples ability to drive over the .002% who get into fatal accidents?


    What I meant was that tossing bricks off the overpass displays a callous disregard of the safety of others, rather than an intentional act of wrongdoing.
    So you are one of those assholes on the road who thinks speed limits are speed suggestions and has no regard for other moterists? Is that what you are saying?

    Substitute some other form of reckless endangerment if you like...say, driving 100 miles per hour down a city street while intoxicated. Maybe you don't INTEND to hurt anyone, but you'd be showing a reckless disregard for their well-being.
    The huge vast majority of drivers do not do that.

    That's how I think that human driving will be viewed once the technology reaches the point where self-driving cars almost never make avoidable mistakes. Once most people have made the switchover to robotic cars, I think they'll question why the few holdouts are still allowed to drive, threatening the safety of everyone
    And I am sure you anti-driving people will use incrementation to slowly take away peoples ability to drive. Either big government or big business will help you.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 10-17-10 at 02:57 PM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  2. #32
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Self-driving Vehicles

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I am sure society can benefit more if we banned free speech, the right to bear and a whole bunch of other rights/freedoms and privileges. However the few who misuse those things does not justify banning people from those rights/freedoms and, privileges.The few who get into accidents does not justify big government or big business taking away your ability to drive.
    You act like you have some ingrained right to drive. Think back 100 years ago...I can just see the people of their day behaving like you are: "So what, these cars can go really fast. Who needs that; my horse is fine. I never travel more than a mile from my home anyway. And in a few decades, there might be something called HIGHWAYS where I won't be allowed to travel with my horse? That's not fair; we must fight the development of these highways! I want the right to travel anywhere I want with my horse, and I want my grandkids to have that same ability."

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage
    There are 193,552,000 licensed drivers in the US. Those 40,000 a year does not justify denying everyone else the ability to drive. What is that about .002 percent of drivers? You are saying that you want to take 99.998% of all the other peoples ability to drive over the .002% who get into fatal accidents?
    I'm saying that eventually that's how it will probably be viewed. Just like seatbelts, or airbags, or any other safety feature. Except vastly more important than those, since not having a seatbelt/airbag only endangers yourself...and since self-driving cars (unlike those things) would have other societal benefits beyond safety.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage
    So you are one of those assholes on the road who thinks speed limits are speed suggestions and has no regard for other moterists? Is that what you are saying?
    Uhh what? Where did that come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage
    The huge vast majority of drivers do not do that.
    It's an analogy. Reckless endangerment of the lives of others is illegal for a reason. If self-driving cars eventually become good enough to prevent most accidents, I can definitely forsee a time when the mere act of driving would be considered reckless endangerment. And that's fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage
    And I am sure you anti-driving people will use incrementation to slowly take away peoples ability to drive. Either big government or big business will help you.
    "Anti-driving people."

    All because I can think about how the world might change in a few decades, instead of thinking I have some god-given right to drive and should continue to be able to do it for all eternity, just because people have been doing it for the past 100 years.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 10-17-10 at 04:30 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #33
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Self-driving Vehicles

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Sounds like a good idea if it can reduce accidents, but it's going to take a lot of time before people will start using self-driving vehicles. Not only do we need to improve the technology, but the technology has to get cheaper so it can replace ordinary cars. It probably won't happen before in 50 years or so.
    I disagree. It's almost ready now; GM has said that they plan to roll them out by 2017 or 2018 (which might be optimistic by a couple years, but not more than that). As far as the cost, remember that Moore's Law cuts the cost of computer power in half every 12-18 months. So ten years from now, computers will be 100 to 1,000 times more powerful than they are today for the same price.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 10-17-10 at 04:32 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #34
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,073

    Re: Self-driving Vehicles

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    You act like you have some ingrained right to drive. Think back 100 years ago...I can just see the people of their day behaving like you are: "So what, these cars can go really fast. Who needs that; my horse is fine. I never travel more than a mile from my home anyway. And in a few decades, there might be something called HIGHWAYS where I won't be allowed to travel with my horse? That's not fair; we must fight the development of these highways! I want the right to travel anywhere I want with my horse, and I want my grandkids to have that same ability."
    I do not care if driving is not a ingrained right. I still do not want big government or big business dictating where, when I can go somewhere or take away my ability to drive.


    I'm saying that eventually that's how it will probably be viewed. Just like seatbelts, or airbags, or any other safety feature. Except vastly more important than those, since not having a seatbelt/airbag only endangers yourself...and since self-driving cars (unlike those things) would have other societal benefits beyond safety.

    What .002% of the population? Taking away the ability to drive does not benefit society as a whole seeing how only .002% will be affected. .002% of 193,552,000 licensed drivers is not society.


    Uhh what? Where did that come from?
    You compare driving to a a callous disregard of the safety of others. I have no disregard for the safety of others. Perhaps for you to think of someone driving has a a callous disregard of the safety of others you must be speaking from personal experience. Do you even drive?

    It's an analogy. Reckless endangerment of the lives of others is illegal for a reason. If self-driving cars eventually become good enough to prevent most accidents, I can definitely forsee a time when the mere act of driving would be considered reckless endangerment. And that's fine.
    Driving is not reckless endangerment of the lives of others. So your analogy comparing driving to throwing bricks off the overpass is seriously flawed.

    "Anti-driving people."
    You think people should be banned from driving if self driving cars ever come out. Therefore anti-driving people suites you.


    All because I can think about how the world might change in a few decades, instead of thinking I have some god-given right to drive and should continue to be able to do it for all eternity, just because people have been doing it for the past 100 years.
    The huge vast majority of people are responsible drivers. So it will not have an effect on society. The fact that only .002% of licensed drivers have a traffic fatalities a year a testament to the fact that the huge vast majority of people are responsible drivers.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  5. #35
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Self-driving Vehicles

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I do not care if driving is not a ingrained right. I still do not want big government or big business dictating where, when I can go somewhere or take away my ability to drive.
    And I'm sure there were luddites like you 100 years ago who didn't want the government taking away to ride their horses wherever they wanted. Too bad, they lost.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage
    What .002% of the population? Taking away the ability to drive does not benefit society as a whole seeing how only .002% will be affected. .002% of 193,552,000 licensed drivers is not society.
    Well a few things:
    1. Your statistics are incorrect. First of all, you've added a decimal. Per year, the fatality rate is closer to .02%. Second of all, that is only the annual number. A person's lifetime risk of dying in a car accident is closer to 1%. And that's not even counting the vastly greater number who aren't killed, but are seriously injured in car accidents.

    2. Self-driving cars have a lot more benefits than just safety, as I've already mentioned.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage
    You compare driving to a a callous disregard of the safety of others. I have no disregard for the safety of others. Perhaps for you to think of someone driving has a a callous disregard of the safety of others you must be speaking from personal experience. Do you even drive?

    Driving is not reckless endangerment of the lives of others. So your analogy comparing driving to throwing bricks off the overpass is seriously flawed.
    I'm not saying it's reckless endangerment NOW. At the present time, we don't really have any better options, so we tolerate the extreme risk that comes from driving. I'm saying in A FEW DECADES - after self-driving cars are popular - it may very well be viewed as reckless endangerment. Just as cars of the 1950s would NEVER pass the safety standards necessary to make it onto the market today.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage
    The huge vast majority of people are responsible drivers. So it will not have an effect on society. The fact that only .002% of licensed drivers have a traffic fatalities a year a testament to the fact that the huge vast majority of people are responsible drivers.
    If you can't see any impact that self-driving cars will have on society, then it's because you're a backward-looking luddite who refuses to consider anything that isn't in your immediate experience. And the fact that you're so obsessed with preventing any public safety standards from evolving to keep pace with better technology - as opposed to the real story here, the technological development itself - shows that you have no understanding of either technology or history.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 10-17-10 at 09:56 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #36
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,239

    Re: Self-driving Vehicles

    The last generation of piloted fighter planes is on the drawing board, if not already flying. Very soon they will all be remote/computer controlled. Commercial airlines are halfway there too. Pilots are rapidly becoming a failsafe backup, rather than the glorified bus drivers they once were. They will soon be redundant altogether. Why should cars, which are inherently safer to start with, be any different?
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

  7. #37
    Educator Jucon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    04-22-14 @ 07:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    787

    Re: Self-driving Vehicles

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I do not care if driving is not a ingrained right. I still do not want big government or big business dictating where, when I can go somewhere or take away my ability to drive.





    What .002% of the population? Taking away the ability to drive does not benefit society as a whole seeing how only .002% will be affected. .002% of 193,552,000 licensed drivers is not society.


    You compare driving to a a callous disregard of the safety of others. I have no disregard for the safety of others. Perhaps for you to think of someone driving has a a callous disregard of the safety of others you must be speaking from personal experience. Do you even drive?



    Driving is not reckless endangerment of the lives of others. So your analogy comparing driving to throwing bricks off the overpass is seriously flawed.



    You think people should be banned from driving if self driving cars ever come out. Therefore anti-driving people suites you.




    The huge vast majority of people are responsible drivers. So it will not have an effect on society. The fact that only .002% of licensed drivers have a traffic fatalities a year a testament to the fact that the huge vast majority of people are responsible drivers.
    There are more societal benefits to installing this type of system nation wide than just fewer deaths...
    - Improved commuting times
    - Less traffic jams
    - Money saved through transportation costs
    - Increased speed limits
    - Fewer accidents
    - Ability to get things done while on the way to a destination
    - Less need for police to patrol the highways and freeways

    The installment of this type of system could eventually be the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System of the future... and we all know how well his program turned out.

    I get it, you like the ability to drive your car yourself... but self driving vehicles are coming. They may not be perfected for another 50 years for all we know but I hope by then you'll lighten up to the idea and realize that a perfected system could keep your children and yourself more safe on the road while improving the overall fluidity of the United States transportation system.
    "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, it to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." óJohn Adams

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •