Posted on 03/19/2018 1:33:15 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Sounds more excusable that a car ran down a pedestrian “not in the crosswalk” instead of a bicyclist legally on the road, presuming she was hit on the road. Maybe Uber will argue the city is at fault since there was no apparent bicycle lane.
I want Boss Hogg’s opinion on this matter. This has to be NRA related somehow.
All in the details after all. How you been?
Had a cousin hit and almost died from getting
hit by a pizza delivery guy in Nashville.
He didn`t cross at a crosswalk.
No lawyer would even talk to him after they
read the Police report.
computers, driverless cars and robots - it is said in a few years we will be completely dependent on them in every segment of our life.. All are computer and electronically operated.
And just how reliable are these computers? Have you ever had computer problems? has it crashed? Has it mysteriously lost important data?
A friend reminded me that the way he judges the computer age is by considering the hurricane computers, some of the best in the world. They are all fed the same data, but look at all the suggested hurricane paths resulting. No consist accuracy in that regard.
And on top of that they are easily hacked, manipulated and caused to do things you don’t want them to do. I have not experienced that, but some of you have and certainly we have all read about it,
When you have a car accident, just tell your insurance company it was the fault of a “computer glitch”.
Reboot and keep on driving.
Well, no.
The footprint of automobiles varies greatly from city to city, but when one accounts for highways and roads, plus parking, more land in most U.S. cities is used for cars than for housing or business. Yet most cars sit idle most of the day, while congestion during rush hour is awful in larger cities. The inefficiency and wastage is enormous.
It makes perfect sense to envision fleets of autonomous cars that would be instantly available on call while, as shared assets, also being in use most of the time. People confuse this with a separate issue, the loss of personal autonomy. I don't think that's a fair linkage. The autonomous car would still take you wherever you wanted to go. It will even take you there safely if you are drunk. And if you thought the local fleets don't provide adequate service, you could own one for yourself, though you would have to sacrifice living space and money for a garage. (Autonomous car users won't need garages either, which means bigger and/or less expensive houses.) It is true that a driverless system will be controlled by GPS, which means that your trips to your local drug dealer or your extracurricular activities when you are supposed to be working will be visible to the managers. But I'm willing to live with that. The reality is, if the police are surveilling you, they can track you now. Your wife has to work a little harder to do it, but if she's determined, she can do it too.
The liability issue will have to be sorted out. Beyond that, when the technology is mature, the transition will be driven by popular demand, with laggards being driven to it by the insurance companies, which will quickly realize that most accidents are caused by driver error. The autonomous cars will ultimately be safer. Eventually, driving your own car will be considered reckless public endangerment. In 50 years, perhaps sooner, the automakers won't even be making conventional cars except for some specialty applications (like military vehicles), and most people will never bother to learn to drive, as they will prefer the convenience and lower costs of the fleet approach.
Computers don't drink or drug, don't have senior moments, aren't bothered by glare, and won't drive recklessly. And their reaction time is a lot faster. When the technology matures, computers will be vastly safer than human drivers.
Resisting autonomous cars on grounds of reliability is like demanding that financial institutions eliminate their modern computer systems and return to manual bookkeeping, because you don't think automation is reliable enough.
Most bicyclists don't ride back and forth in crosswalks, they ride down the street. Don't fall for the Uber propaganda.
Only the beginning.
Driverless vehicles will kil a whole bunch of people, then they will be taken off the roads.
Most bicyclists don’t ride back and forth in crosswalks, they ride down the street. Don’t fall for the Uber propaganda.
...
The information about the accident is coming from the police not Uber. Watch the video of the police conference at the following link. The police are identifying the woman as a pedestrian. They are making a point of saying she was outside a crosswalk. She may have been pushing a bicycle. They say she was hit as soon as she stepped into the vehicle’s lane. There is video of the accident and the police spokesman has seen it.
No, that would be the human driver that killed someone. Up to this point, it wasn’t the car’s fault.
Just wait for a big Solar flare! Chaos!
certainly modern technology is great and wonderful. But IMO you should not take the human human element out.
We recently had two highly computerized warships damaged at sea, run down by other ships, because, although they had all the modern bells and whistles, they failed to keep a human on watch. They counted on the equipment and basic seamanship took a backseat to the computers. Lives were lost.
We recently had two highly computerized warships damaged at sea, run down by other ships, because, although they had all the modern bells and whistles, they failed to keep a human on watch. They counted on the equipment and basic seamanship took a backseat to the computers. Lives were lost.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
At least we had the HUMANS as scapegoats ... (Probably are/were guilty BUT how much ‘leeway’ were they ordered to allow?)
Nothing new for USN though go back to 1944 and the USS Indianapolis .. skipper basically followed orders and ended up getting sunk....NATURALLY, the CO is ‘wrong’ in a case such as this but the US Govt went so far as to bring the CO of the Japanese Sub to testify against the Indy Skipper....
Cooler heads finally prevailed and the CO was sort of vindicated though he eventually committed suicide.
Then there was the USS Pueblo in 1968......
‘WE’ are out there alone until the SHTF than ‘they’ look for fall guys....
They’ve now guaranteed themselves an embarrassing first in Trivial Pursuit and/or Jeopardy.
That is not what I meant. I meant that the bridge project was touted as a new approach to old bridge building but in theory not so so good. Headless cars in theory may be good but reality is they are not so good.
I agree someone needs to be held accountable.
I've heard both sides of the argument for and against this new approach. The con argument is that building it away from the site and then rolling it into place, introduces stress into the concrete and weakens it, perhaps even cracking it. Traditional method of pouring into place at the site allows it to strengthen over time without weakening or cracking the new pour; much stronger. New approach not so good, as the pro arguments are about saving time and not disrupting traffic, which didn't work out well.
Similar situation with the driverless cars. They're getting the kinks out by testing in live traffic situations, just like stress testing an unfinished bridge over traffic. Can't end well. There will be more fatalities; wouldn't wish it to happen to friends or family. Test them out on employees, not the innocent public.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.