Then there's Star Wars. The left said it couldn't be done. Now there's a Golden Dome and the shooting down of rockets in Israel.
Uh, I’d rather not.
I’ll continue to enjoy rowing through the gears on my gated transmissions, thank you.
This is an under-the radar revolution that’s sneaking up on us. It will come to a head-sooner the better. 100% self driving cars will result in fewer deaths-ask the bean-counters and then question the MSM who cried wolf over Covid deaths. More work getting done, car ownership going down, insurance rates and fewer highway patrolmen. Gonna be awesome.
False comparisons.
I guess this isn’t a good time to mention DEI, huh?
A self-driving car is a monitored, controlled car. Fine for Uber, Waymo, drunks, and realy old people. Not for me.
Thank God, we’re not using “MSN Logic” (a max oxymoron). Does anyone need further proof that our media lives well to the left side of the Bell Curve. Journalism - always a viable option when you can’t even qualify for a studies major.
One Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Miss...
eh, no I don't think so.
I’m still wondering how the insurance is going to work.
The Iron Dome is great for intercepting one or two incoming missiles at a time. But a full barrage of missiles overloaded it.
That's what it's like depending on a self-driving car to depend on all of the variables of a busy road, with lightly painted lines, pedestrians jaywalking, maybe on a small road with a pedestrian walking out from behind a bush to check her mailbox (and thus standing barely in your lane), or when a car is swerving into your lane from the other side. Or dodging potholes.
My 3-year-old car came with driving assist. I played with it some in different scenarios. Not even in the most optimum scenarios did it handle the situation as good as I could. I turned it off and haven't regretted the past 3 years of it not helping nudge the steering wheel to "help me".
Wow, author Bryan Walsh is an idiot to write this: “There’s as much as a 2.5-second lag between what we perceive and how fast we can react in a vehicle traveling 60 mph, which means a car will travel the equivalent of two basketball court lengths before its driver can even hit the brake.”
He should stick his finger in a boiling pot of water for 2.5 seconds to test that.
Well I gu3ss one good thing to come out of it is that it makes the road safer for those of us who refuse to let a computer prone to malfunction take over driving for us. We wo t have to worry about the idiots who text and drive or the drunks behind the wheel anymore, or not as much I should say.
A best-case automatic driver will still make least-harm decisions in crises.
Motorcyclists will be less equal than others. Cars will stop when Central Authority says so or when a Mostly Peaceful (tm) protest comes to kill you.
“Lives saved” only means the ones they think matter.
No thanks, i prefer the old fashioned way. Two hands on the wheel, look both ways, twice.
No thanks.
If saving lives was the primary motivation for adopting automated vehicles (AVs), then why hasn't any government taken the first step of even just mandating speed restrictors in new cars?
Technology isn't the limiting factor here. The first "self-driving" car was developed and tested in 1959.
Interesting home page you got there. You do not sound very libertarian.
Driving for the most part is drudgery.
Airbus in a few cases has automation override pilots, with crashes resulting. Boeing also had "helpful" systems that also cause crashes. "Everything in moderation" -- the push should be to assist drivers (including monitoring drivers) to prevent those unfortunate experiments in inelastic collisions with other vehicles and stationary objects.
The auto industry has come a long way toward protecting passengers and drivers from collisions. Now it's time to providing help to avoid collisions.