All you are saying is that for right now, in your current situation, that there are better options for YOU personally. That may or may not be true, but it certainly says nothing to the general statements you've made against EVs.
This is irrelevant. The relevant point is that making driving easier will result in more miles driven which will result in more energy used. NOT compared to today necessarily, but compared to a world without those features.
Your distinction is arbitrary. As long as people are not paying more for their water (or whatever) than the long term costs of providing that water then it is a fee (and a fair one). It makes no difference where the money is actually spent.
Because you, like all drivers, are so much better than the average driver. I'm sure your ancestors said the same things about every technological advance, fighting progress all the way. They would be proud of you.
Nobody is sure, actually. Every driver and every cop will give you a different answer as to what is safe and expected in such situations. The rule for non-jerks and honest officers is just for everyone to be reasonable. In this case it means the poster should probably have been further to the right, clearly indicated he was turning right and looked for any traffic in the shoulder. Of course, the other guy also made many errors and shares fault in this near accident.
Are you assuming that they can't do this better than the average human right now? My opinion is that the best cars available already can.
So the question is do we delay a "better than average driver" for political reasons while knowing that it will cost many lives and countless accidents just because of the politics.It would be craven and selfish of Google to make this call on its own, it is a decision that should be made by non-gutless politicians. If we can find any.
Is a head on catastrophic collision killing dozens the only other possibility you can envision?
We don't have a full video of the accident, so we can't judge with any certainty. However, there are dozens of things that the bus driver could have done differently. To start with it shouldn't have even been in the situation where it had to act suddenly because it shouldn't be accelerating past a car so close to it that was clearly blocked and might move over a few feet. It also shouldn't have left such a large gap from the car in front of it if it didn't want others to merge. Lastly even if letting off the gas and slowly braking wasn't an option, yes going a foot into the next lane most likely would have been fine.
Absolutely right. Fortunately the other vehicle wasn't a kid on a bicycle. This is a prime example of why we can't get autonomous vehicles soon enough.
A parked car is a very different situation. A reasonable driver should be aware of those turning right in the shared lane and should proceed with caution. A parked car without a turn signal jumping into the lane is much harder to account for.
Once again you are making a lot of unwarranted assumptions to fit your own biases against Google and AV cars in general. You are bringing nothing of value here and it is not worth my time (or that of anyone else serious about this) trying to have a reasonable conversation with you.
In this specific case it was a shared lane. By what right did the bus get to blindly keep going when there was a car in the same lane that was ahead of it? It has just as much responsibility to avoid other traffic and should only proceed itself when it is safe to do so. Which it obviously wasn't because the Google car was ahead of it. What is reasonable in this case totally depends on where the vehicles were at each point, but the benefit of the doubt should go to the car proceding cautiously at 2mph rather than one going 15 mph and presumably leaving a large gap for some unknown reason.
But in the general case, in just about every merge you are likely to find in a city or busy freeway it will require the trailing car to be reasonable and slow down.
So everyone leaving their light bulbs on will cause no pollution. Ok.
I see the problem here - you are insane. Not insane enough to think light bulbs are exactly the same as cars, but insane enough not to understand the analogy.
You are making a lot of assumptions about this incident that aren't warranted. I imagine if I observed your driving behavior for 10 minutes I could find any number of times where you made assumptions about what other drivers were going to do (either that or you would be a tremendous pain to drive around).
But yes, I do think Google is making their cars more accident prone. If they made them completely safe they would be as useless and annoying as the algorithms you claim to use while driving (but I suspect don't).
If people leave their lights at home on all the time will that also not cause any more pollution? Bulbs are getting more efficient and more energy is produced by renewable sources. Ergo, by your theory leaving your lights on permanently will not result in more pollution.
By that standard you will be stuck in traffic constantly and be an even greater hazard on the road. The reason this AV even got into this situation was because it was testing software that allowed it to make reasonable assumptions about other traffic as any sane driver would.
You would also think that a good human driver would have seen that car going 2 mph trying to avoid the sandbags and not continued on obliviously at 15 mph.
Sure, all of what you say is possible, we don't have all the data. It's ALSO possible that crashes wouldn't have occurred if the self-driving car had been left to correct itself.
However, what data we do have suggests that the combination of AV and scrupulous test driver is better than the average driver. We also know that every time the driver has to take the wheel that it will make the next generation of AV that much better.
Why on earth would they be constantly in motion? They won't move around at all unless they have to get out of someone's way or to position themselves strategically as demand shifts. You also definitely won't have many cars racing to pick up a passenger; you will only have one, the one that accepts the request and presumably that will be the closest one. All of which is much more efficient than the current system.
No, the "more miles driven = more pollution" premise is based on the assumption that it requires energy to move vehicles around and that producing energy results in some pollution. Which of those is not true now or in the near future?
That depends on what you mean by "minimal", of course. If you take it to mean it won't cause double the mileage (going from one hour to two) for the entire population, then I would agree with you, but by any reasonable definition it will be very significant.
People already make the decision you don't think they will. They choose a longer public transportation option because they don't want the hassle of the long drive. Two hours longer? No. But they will trade off an extra half hour to avoid stressful driving and parking hassle.
Also, take the parking issue you've mentioned; it actually goes away if you have self driving cars. You won't have to waste time parking and you certainly won't have to pay the highest downtown rates by your office. Getting dropped in front of your office will save you 5 to 10 minutes (which allows you to move that much farther away) and the car will go off to park itself in a cheap or free lot.
I think you are vastly overestimating the problem of motion sickness. Only a small fraction of people will be unable to do anything in the cabin of a well designed autonomous car. Even those would be able to listen to music or books in a low stress environment which would make them happier and more productive.
You are right about robo-Ubers being a better option for most people. That won't have much affect on how far people are willing to commute, however.
The important point to realize from this is that no matter which of those eventualities happen, they can be alleviated by a fair system of fees and taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
All you are saying is that for right now, in your current situation, that there are better options for YOU personally. That may or may not be true, but it certainly says nothing to the general statements you've made against EVs.
This is irrelevant. The relevant point is that making driving easier will result in more miles driven which will result in more energy used. NOT compared to today necessarily, but compared to a world without those features.
Your distinction is arbitrary. As long as people are not paying more for their water (or whatever) than the long term costs of providing that water then it is a fee (and a fair one). It makes no difference where the money is actually spent.
If you have a 25 mile commute and you go to work 20 days a week you're already at 1000 miles. No need to even charge during the day.
Because you, like all drivers, are so much better than the average driver. I'm sure your ancestors said the same things about every technological advance, fighting progress all the way. They would be proud of you.
That is an insane analogy. Making an arbitrary decision on who you choose to blame doesn't change who actually is at fault.
Nobody is sure, actually. Every driver and every cop will give you a different answer as to what is safe and expected in such situations. The rule for non-jerks and honest officers is just for everyone to be reasonable. In this case it means the poster should probably have been further to the right, clearly indicated he was turning right and looked for any traffic in the shoulder. Of course, the other guy also made many errors and shares fault in this near accident.
Your point was understood all along by anyone with an ounce of sense and no agenda. You are wasting your time here.
They're certainly not doing themselves any favors in justifying not having their jobs taken away by AVs.
Are you assuming that they can't do this better than the average human right now? My opinion is that the best cars available already can.
So the question is do we delay a "better than average driver" for political reasons while knowing that it will cost many lives and countless accidents just because of the politics.It would be craven and selfish of Google to make this call on its own, it is a decision that should be made by non-gutless politicians. If we can find any.
Is a head on catastrophic collision killing dozens the only other possibility you can envision?
We don't have a full video of the accident, so we can't judge with any certainty. However, there are dozens of things that the bus driver could have done differently. To start with it shouldn't have even been in the situation where it had to act suddenly because it shouldn't be accelerating past a car so close to it that was clearly blocked and might move over a few feet. It also shouldn't have left such a large gap from the car in front of it if it didn't want others to merge. Lastly even if letting off the gas and slowly braking wasn't an option, yes going a foot into the next lane most likely would have been fine.
Absolutely right. Fortunately the other vehicle wasn't a kid on a bicycle. This is a prime example of why we can't get autonomous vehicles soon enough.
A parked car is a very different situation. A reasonable driver should be aware of those turning right in the shared lane and should proceed with caution. A parked car without a turn signal jumping into the lane is much harder to account for.
Once again you are making a lot of unwarranted assumptions to fit your own biases against Google and AV cars in general. You are bringing nothing of value here and it is not worth my time (or that of anyone else serious about this) trying to have a reasonable conversation with you.
In this specific case it was a shared lane. By what right did the bus get to blindly keep going when there was a car in the same lane that was ahead of it? It has just as much responsibility to avoid other traffic and should only proceed itself when it is safe to do so. Which it obviously wasn't because the Google car was ahead of it. What is reasonable in this case totally depends on where the vehicles were at each point, but the benefit of the doubt should go to the car proceding cautiously at 2mph rather than one going 15 mph and presumably leaving a large gap for some unknown reason.
But in the general case, in just about every merge you are likely to find in a city or busy freeway it will require the trailing car to be reasonable and slow down.
So everyone leaving their light bulbs on will cause no pollution. Ok.
I see the problem here - you are insane. Not insane enough to think light bulbs are exactly the same as cars, but insane enough not to understand the analogy.
You are making a lot of assumptions about this incident that aren't warranted. I imagine if I observed your driving behavior for 10 minutes I could find any number of times where you made assumptions about what other drivers were going to do (either that or you would be a tremendous pain to drive around).
But yes, I do think Google is making their cars more accident prone. If they made them completely safe they would be as useless and annoying as the algorithms you claim to use while driving (but I suspect don't).
If people leave their lights at home on all the time will that also not cause any more pollution? Bulbs are getting more efficient and more energy is produced by renewable sources. Ergo, by your theory leaving your lights on permanently will not result in more pollution.
By that standard you will be stuck in traffic constantly and be an even greater hazard on the road. The reason this AV even got into this situation was because it was testing software that allowed it to make reasonable assumptions about other traffic as any sane driver would.
You would also think that a good human driver would have seen that car going 2 mph trying to avoid the sandbags and not continued on obliviously at 15 mph.
Sure, all of what you say is possible, we don't have all the data. It's ALSO possible that crashes wouldn't have occurred if the self-driving car had been left to correct itself.
However, what data we do have suggests that the combination of AV and scrupulous test driver is better than the average driver. We also know that every time the driver has to take the wheel that it will make the next generation of AV that much better.
Why on earth would they be constantly in motion? They won't move around at all unless they have to get out of someone's way or to position themselves strategically as demand shifts. You also definitely won't have many cars racing to pick up a passenger; you will only have one, the one that accepts the request and presumably that will be the closest one. All of which is much more efficient than the current system.
No, the "more miles driven = more pollution" premise is based on the assumption that it requires energy to move vehicles around and that producing energy results in some pollution. Which of those is not true now or in the near future?
That depends on what you mean by "minimal", of course. If you take it to mean it won't cause double the mileage (going from one hour to two) for the entire population, then I would agree with you, but by any reasonable definition it will be very significant.
People already make the decision you don't think they will. They choose a longer public transportation option because they don't want the hassle of the long drive. Two hours longer? No. But they will trade off an extra half hour to avoid stressful driving and parking hassle.
Also, take the parking issue you've mentioned; it actually goes away if you have self driving cars. You won't have to waste time parking and you certainly won't have to pay the highest downtown rates by your office. Getting dropped in front of your office will save you 5 to 10 minutes (which allows you to move that much farther away) and the car will go off to park itself in a cheap or free lot.
I think you are vastly overestimating the problem of motion sickness. Only a small fraction of people will be unable to do anything in the cabin of a well designed autonomous car. Even those would be able to listen to music or books in a low stress environment which would make them happier and more productive.
You are right about robo-Ubers being a better option for most people. That won't have much affect on how far people are willing to commute, however.
The important point to realize from this is that no matter which of those eventualities happen, they can be alleviated by a fair system of fees and taxes.