Posted on 03/11/2016 7:09:11 AM PST by gridlock
Can computerized cars drive better than we can?
The cover story of Time’s March 7 issue makes “the increasingly compelling case for why you shouldn’t be allowed to drive,” claiming that computerized cars are (or, it is hoped, will be) safer drivers than humans, and so the logical thing is to ban humans from driving altogether. The plan is simple and familiar: First you use behavioral economics (higher taxes) to discourage a certain behavior — think of smoking — and once it’s gotten really unpopular, you ban it. Before you know it, you can’t smoke in Central Park.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Completely different discussion. And yes they’ll have to increase security. As we move to the internet of things pretty much everything needs to do a better job of security.
I presented a premise and then YOU didn’t refute that. Maybe I should give you a “hmmmm”.
Government creep is never ending. But government creep isn’t stupid. What I keep pointing out, and nobody can be bothered to pay attention to, is this is an area the government actively does NOT want to creep in. They don’t want control over our cars. They don’t want to stop us from bad behavior. Bad behavior is profitable for the government, bad driving is profitable for the government. Why do you think our drivers ed is so crappy and our licenses basically come out of crackerjack boxes? Do you think the government doesn’t know that we have the lowest driving standards of the civilized world? And the worst drivers, with highest accident rate? Do you think they couldn’t borrow a book from England (or Germany or France, but those would have to be translated) and figure out how to fix the fact that we suck at driving? So why do you think they don’t? Money. It’s really that simple. We suck at driving, we get tickets, the government makes money. So why in blazes would they want to control our cars and make it so we never get tickets anymore?
On all these paranoid ravings it always boils down to 3 simple questions:
who would benefit
what would it cost to get this benefit
is it actually worth the trouble
And the simple fact is that all the paranoid ideas of what the government would do with self driving cars don’t add up. There’s no real benefit for the government taking over our cars. It would cost them a mint IF they could even solve the data problem. And hell no it wouldn’t be worth the trouble.
Now replace the government in that math with your insurance company and see what’s REALLY going to happen.
Now THAT’S something I never thought of. Which, in itself is amazing to me. Warm weather is coming. Now you’ve got me wishing for a self driving car for Christmas. Thanks a lot. Now I have to spam the crap outta Santa!
Bingo. Basically you visited the target demographic for the first wave of self driving cars. People with a massive commute, things they could do in the car during the commute, and probably make enough money with enough time in the car that even if the system added a couple grand to the cost it’s worth it for them. He’s the people that will make the technology profitable enough to eventually trickle down to people like me, with a boring but not torturous commute who wouldn’t pay a lot for the feature but certainly won’t reject it.
people are clamoring for them.
Really? They are?
People are basically driving half asleep anyway,
Is that so?
What color is the sky in your world?
“I thought Hillary got rid of of Qaddhafi.”
LOL! At that time, it was the Libyans getting rid of Hillary and the NWO’s buttboy Qaddhafi.
Qaddhafi made the ultimately fatal mistake of ordering his army to fire on Libyans protesting Qaddhafi’s criminal NWO regime. Seventy-five percent of the Libyan Army deserted and returned home. Then Qaddhafi ordered out his southern mercenary army to kill Libyans. Big mistake.
His mercenary goons opened fire on college students, and the whole country exploded in rage. The army deserters joined up with the provincial militias and attacked. Qaddhafi’s NWO bureaucracy was hanged from lampposts while his elite pretorian guard and southern mercenaries where massacred and shoveled into open pits by the thousands.
We had reports of Hillary screeching like a demon as she watched her NWO goons die. (I happened to be working as an independent contractor for some Israeli companies while the Libyan civil war unfolded, giving me access to Israeli reports on the war.) The media was going nuts and accusing the Libyan rebels of racism as they butchered Qaddhafi’s mercenary army, most of whom were recruited from neighboring African countries.
No, Hillary didn’t rid Libya of Qaddhafi; the Libyans got rid of Qaddhafi all by themselves. If this was a test by the NWO to determine if it could suppress and control a population, and I’m not saying it was, the exercise failed completely.
The only governments who make money on tickets are state and local governments. Not the feds.
Even if you don’t use your OnStar (or other telematics system), it’s still there doing stuff, even if you don’t sign up for the monthly user fee.
But I’m sure that there’s not a police department anywhere that wouldn’t want the ability to shut down a particular car remotely to avoid a dangerous high-speed chase. They will push for that, as always, in the name of safety.
They already have black-box data recorders in every new car. And that feature is there because the feds require it (with some help from the insurance lobby).
20 years ago, that wasn’t even a possibility because car computers didn’t have the capacity to do that. Today, it’s easy for them. And in another 20 years, they will be able to do much more.
Always keep in mind that regulators NEVER stop in their quest to make the world a “better place”.
Remember Reagan’s “nine most terrifying words in the English language”?
“I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
Wow nothing but insults. Meanwhile, back in reality, plenty of people DO want self driving cars. Sorry if that bothers you, but you need to take that up with the world, since that’s who you’re at odds with.
And which sections of government dictate drivers education standards, and license requirements?
My car doesn’t have it. Lots of cars don’t, it’s a dying feature.
And yet we still constantly have high speed chases. Onstar has been around for over 20 years, and we still aren’t regularly shutting down cars.
You’ve got it backwards, the INSURANCE companies required it, and bribed the fed to make it happen. Of course it turns out they only keep a few minutes worth of data. The part insurance companies are interested in.
Onstar came into existence in 1995, electronic fuel injection (the first reason for car computers) dates back to the 1980s. So actually it’s been possible for over 20 years.
Again, I’m not saying the government is good or limited. I’m pointing out they have nothing to gain from what the paranoid crowd insists they’ll be doing with self driving cars. The costs are too high, the logistical hurdles even higher, and the benefits are too close to zero.
So, because something hasn’t been done in the past means that you believe that it won’t be done in the future?
Because you don’t know that something has happened, you believe that it hasn’t happened, can’t happen, and/or won’t happen?
You think that because some cars don’t have OnStar (or equivalent capability) and that some people don’t want it (unquestionably true), that the government won’t someday force it onto the car makers, like they have done with backup cameras, tire pressure monitors, and unnecessarily strict CAFE requirements?
My mention of the black box data recorder was only illustrative of what the fedgov is willing and able to do.
If, instead of the insurance lobby, the DOJ convinces the NHTSA to implement a remote shutdown capability, you can be damn well sure it will happen.
Everything that I have mentioned in this conversation is technologically feasible either right now, or in the not too distant future.
Tyranny doesn’t always arrive with troops goose-stepping in the streets, it can just as easily arrive as a series of regulatory baby steps promoted as improving health, safety, the environment, or the climate.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
So with that, I will end this conversation, you need not reply. We will have to agree to disagree.
Have a great day!
No. Because something has massive cost and no benefit it’s unlikely to be done.
Onstar has existed for 20 years. So far, much like self driving cars, the only people talking about it being mandatory are the luddite paranoids. Clinton didn’t make it mandatory, Bush didn’t make it mandatory, Obama didn’t make it mandatory. If none of them saw a gain for the government in making it mandatory it’s unlikely anybody else will. Backup cameras and tire pressure monitors are not mandatory either.
Of course the black box was going in place just from the car companies. It’s good for them too. Somebody isn’t wearing their seatbelt, the black box knows, then they try to sue saying the seatbelt failed, and the car company gets to say “no it didn’t, you didn’t use it”.
Which again gets back to what I said. If you want to know whose going to abuse the look to the insurance companies.
Problem is you keep barking up the wrong tree, and going way out of your way to desperately misinterpret what I said. If you actually bothered to read what I ACTUALLY wrote, instead of inserting a bunch of your own stuff, you’d see I actually outlined how the abuse will happen, and how it won’t. And you’re actually in agreement, but you can’t be bothered to see it.
Do not ping me any more. Understand?
I’ll ping you if I want to ping you. Don’t like it, don’t read it.
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.