If you like driving, something to consider....

[Mojochi]

My only point is that we all do agree to risks in society, that we might be impacted negatively. Planes fly over our heads all day. One of them could be mine, alone. To use a given analogy from some time ago here. "Your freedom to swing your arm freely, ends where my nose begins"

Unless we got us an arm swinging club, & you go sticking your nose in it lol. No one says you can't, but you might expect to take an arm to your nose if you do, & if we're a free people, no one should be looking to deny us it. Hopefully that analogy is in better taste than my last

I'll let this one rest too. I'm not adding much more than that anymore anyhow, & I'm doing my best to let rest a lot of this week's caustic topics, especially one that is so totally hypothetical. I doubt wholly that in the remaining 35-40 years of my life, a technology will come along that supplants this existing one to such a degree that people allow legislation to be enacted against anything but.

 

[Qonundrum]

So when will people take the identical stance on pedestrians and jaywalking while they fiddle on their phones excessively or do things other than walking all in a very dense area. Oh, wait, pedestrian privilege is a big problem - and all the police need to do is ticket the dullards who don't respect the laws and they wouldn't have to worry about revenue for decades. (Sorry, this time I will prattle on about past experiences. The jaywalkers who give not a **** about anyone else on the road are arguably worse.)

That and is the person in the front left seat of the driverless car responsible for an accident? Any details about all sorts of inevitable problems? If the car is automated, the driver has no control or input and therefore should not be the one paying for its mistakes or insurance. If the owner has no control or input or has to do what's told, it's not an owner. It's arguably the other way around.

 

[Qonundrum]

My only point is that we all do agree to risks in society,

Yet not many seem to be able to agree what a society is anymore. And society has faltered because of it. There's a fun situation that stays crunchy in milk.

 

[MacLeod]

So when will people take the identical stance on pedestrians and jaywalking while they fiddle on their phones excessively or do things other than walking all in a very dense area. Oh, wait, pedestrian privilege is a big problem - and all the police need to do is ticket the dullards who don't respect the laws and they wouldn't have to worry about revenue for decades. (Sorry, this time I will prattle on about past experiences. The jaywalkers who give not a **** about anyone else on the road are arguably worse.)

That and is the person in the front left seat of the driverless car responsible for an accident? Any details about all sorts of inevitable problems? If the car is automated, the driver has no control or input and therefore should not be the one paying for its mistakes or insurance. If the owner has no control or input or has to do what's told, it's not an owner. It's arguably the other way around.

In the UK pedestrians are free to cross the road where they like, it's up them to make the determination if it is safe to cross.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

So when will people take the identical stance on pedestrians and jaywalking while they fiddle on their phones excessively or do things other than walking all in a very dense area.

What identical stance? Automating people? Turning them into the Borg? Making people remain indoors? Banning texting? If you're opposed to driverless cars being mandated, fine, but do we really have to keep resorting to these ridiculous analogies and slippery slope arguments to make the point?

We already ticket people for jaywalking and negligent behavior, and if that negligent behavior results in in causing an accident, you can go to jail for it. If a person is walking and texting at the same time, they'll most likely hurt themselves first, and if they hit someone else, at most it will result in a mild injury or inconvenience. Are you really trying to compare that to the danger posed by negligent driving?

If texting pedestrians wandering into traffic and causing massive accidents was even remotely on par in numbers with actual vehicle-on-vehicle or vehicle-on-bike/pedestrian accidents we would ban texting and walking, but it's not. It's not even a blip in comparison.

That and is the person in the front left seat of the driverless car responsible for an accident? Any details about all sorts of inevitable problems? If the car is automated, the driver has no control or input and therefore should not be the one paying for its mistakes or insurance. If the owner has no control or input or has to do what's told, it's not an owner. It's arguably the other way around.

Many states already have no-fault insurance anyway.

If the accident was caused by mechanical failure as a result of not getting the car serviced, then the owner would be at fault. If it's some kind of software issue or mechanical failure from the manufacturer, then they would be at fault. If it's some sort of hack of the ob=nboard computer or traffic system, then the insurance or the state would have to cover it.

Of course you're still the owner even if you're not driving the car. Rich people still own their private jets or yachts even if they have a pilot or captain. You're still the owner of your car even if someone else is driving it.

 

[Qonundrum]

What identical stance? Automating people? Turning them into the Borg? Making people remain indoors? Banning texting? If you're opposed to driverless cars being mandated, fine, but do we really have to keep resorting to these ridiculous analogies and slippery slope arguments to make the point?

We already ticket people for jaywalking and negligent behavior, and if that negligent behavior results in in causing an accident, you can go to jail for it. If a person is walking and texting at the same time, they'll most likely hurt themselves first, and if they hit someone else, at most it will result in a mild injury or inconvenience. Are you really trying to compare that to the danger posed by negligent driving?

If texting pedestrians wandering into traffic and causing massive accidents was even remotely on par in numbers with actual vehicle-on-vehicle or vehicle-on-bike/pedestrian accidents we would ban texting and walking, but it's not. It's not even a blip in comparison.

Countless times, many of us see jaywalkers flagrantly disregarding the rules and in some of those occasions there are officers in plain sight. Jaywalkers are given undue leeway when it comes to their abdicating their own responsibilities. Or cops officers are busy doing other things. Cars are easier to pay attention to. The fact remains that pedestrians do get a free ride or else there wouldn't be so many of them violating laws. The slippery slope was slalomed clearly a long time ago. Just by others.

Many states already have no-fault insurance anyway.

And we all know who pays, regardless. Depends on the issue and severity, and company offering the insurance. Like health insurance, there's a lot that's just bizarre - but everyone always blames the patient, the ones least likely to have say in the matter.

If the accident was caused by mechanical failure as a result of not getting the car serviced, then the owner would be at fault. If it's some kind of software issue or mechanical failure from the manufacturer, then they would be at fault. If it's some sort of hack of the ob=nboard computer or traffic system, then the insurance or the state would have to cover it.

Let's hope so. There are existing precedents, the only issue remaining is proving.

Of course you're still the owner even if you're not driving the car. Rich people still own their private jets or yachts even if they have a pilot or captain. You're still the owner of your car even if someone else is driving it.

The next few years will be most fun to observe indeed.

 

[Gary7]

Legacy is a b*tch.
We have far too much infrastructure in place to make it economically feasible to rip it all apart and redesign our cities to accommodate predominant mass transit transportation with very minimal allowance for independent automobiles. What it would take is an extreme natural disaster that destroys much of the infrastructure, because at that point you have no choice but to rebuild... and then you can rebuild with better ideas in mind.

Individual driving isn't going away anytime soon. What might have been more prudent to ask is "Are you going to miss fossil fuel powered automobiles?" Because in about 25 more years, I'll bet you a majority of cars on the road will be all electric or electric hybrid powered. There is a certain visceral enjoyment to a huge beefy engine and finely tuned exhaust... but that will become a luxury few can afford.

Only wealth people like Jay Leno (if he's still with us) will be enjoying their old fashioned gas guzzling beauties, paying some exorbitant usage taxes on running them, restricted use areas, and of course extremely high fuel costs to boot. People who are poor and must own a car will likely own some electric cheapie. Folks who don't have much money won't be able to afford the fuel costs, taxes, and high maintenance costs (gradually auto shops will abandon the servicing of combustion engines).

 

[Butters]

Jaywalking is an alien concept in the UK. I had to google it to be sure I was thinking of the right thing, Here, you see a gap in the traffic and you cross the road.

Driving rules very a lot over the world. I gather in the US that you’re not allowed to park on the wrong side of the road, facing traffic.

Roundabouts too, I don’t think The IS is big on roundabouts.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Roundabouts too, I don’t think The IS is big on roundabouts.

They're still pretty rare here, but they are increasing in number. I have one nearby in Long Beach.

Every 45th intersection in France is a roundabout, whereas the United States lags far behind with one per 1,118 intersections. Britain, for instance, has about 10 times as many roundabouts relative to the number of total intersections, according to an analysis by geospatial designer Damien Saunder that is based on data from 2014.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...bouts-but-they-should/?utm_term=.da2a86b25e14

 

[Kor]

... I gather in the US that you’re not allowed to park on the wrong side of the road, facing traffic.
...

Probably technically not allowed, but in my area people do it all the time in residential neighborhoods.

Kor

 

[Mojochi]

Jaywalking is an alien concept in the UK. I had to google it to be sure I was thinking of the right thing, Here, you see a gap in the traffic and you cross the road.

It's a bit regional as to how fully it's enforced, but generally in major metropolitan areas, intersections have crosswalks & that's where we must cross. My town, we don't even think about. A cop would have to be a real jerk to ticket someone for it, even on main drags... strips... thoroughfares... whatever you call them

I gather in the US that you’re not allowed to park on the wrong side of the road, facing traffic.

Nope. Always park facing the flow of traffic. Even cyclists must drive with flow. Every time I watch some British television, it isn't the driving on the other side of the road that shocks me, it's that a taxi or something will literally jerk into the oncoming lane to pull over & let someone out. I have seen that right? You guys do that? Geez... I'm guessing you are pretty careful about it

Roundabouts too, I don’t think The IS is big on roundabouts.

We have a couple here in my town, that just get called circles.

 

[Mudd]

For those of us who like cars and driving this might send a chill down your spine. Life as we know it mght be coming to an end and perhaps sooner than we think.

This is a world I am in no hurry to see: http://driving.ca/auto-news/news/motor-mouth-the-social-contract-of-driving

We’ve had it good for a very long time. I hope we don’t lose one of life’s pleasures anytime soon.

I live in a country where everyone can't agree on sensible measures to keep people from murdering one another en masse with military-type firearms. I'm not really concerned that we'll be seriously discouraged from driving any time soon.

As for me, I'll have a self-driving car when they pry my steering wheel and my manual gearshift from my cold, dead hands.

Yep. I have no interest whatever in the things.

What do we look for when buying a car?

Cost
Comfort
Practicality
Safety
Fuel Economy
Appearance

Fun.

That pretty covers what I suspected in the other thread (about the ol' Ford Crown Vicky). Self-driving cars are probably going to be 10-15 years in the future, for the next 50-60 years... You know, like fusion power.

Probably so.

We don't live an island by our self we live in a society and as such enter into a social contract to live in that society. Ideally the rights of society as a whole and individual rights should be equal.

No.

 

[MacLeod]

They're still pretty rare here, but they are increasing in number. I have one nearby in Long Beach.

Every 45th intersection in France is a roundabout, whereas the United States lags far behind with one per 1,118 intersections. Britain, for instance, has about 10 times as many roundabouts relative to the number of total intersections, according to an analysis by geospatial designer Damien Saunder that is based on data from 2014.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...bouts-but-they-should/?utm_term=.da2a86b25e14

Well why would you want to adopt something which is safer and more efficient and often cheaper in the long term when you can have the old more dangerous and less efficient intersection and often more expensive intersection.

Nope. Always park facing the flow of traffic. Even cyclists must drive with flow. Every time I watch some British television, it isn't the driving on the other side of the road that shocks me, it's that a taxi or something will literally jerk into the oncoming lane to pull over & let someone out. I have seen that right? You guys do that? Geez... I'm guessing you are pretty careful about its.

We have these things called indicators on vehicles in the UK that allow one driver to indicate to other drivers that they intend to pull over even if that is on the other side of the road.

 

[Mojochi]

We have these things called indicators on vehicles in the UK that allow one driver to indicate to other drivers that they intend to pull over even if that is on the other side of the road.

Well, yeah, but there still has to be some level of mutual understanding going on that I'm unaware of, because just from my own regional understanding, a large number of inner city accidents occur, when one vehicle is crossing into oncoming traffic (In our cases to turn down a cross street at intersections) and the reaction speed of drivers in the lane they're entering is drastically reduced. This practice would seem to elevate that probability lol

I mean, so if you want to pull off into an oncoming lane, you clearly have to wait until the traffic is clear from it. So, do y'all just stop in the middle of roads, bogging down your own lanes, until the oncoming one is passable?

 

[Butters]

Well, yeah, but there still has to be some level of mutual understanding going on that I'm unaware of, because just from my own regional understanding, a large number of inner city accidents occur, when one vehicle is crossing into oncoming traffic (In our cases to turn down a cross street at intersections) and the reaction speed of drivers in the lane they're entering is drastically reduced. This practice would seem to elevate that probability lol

I mean, so if you want to pull off into an oncoming lane, you clearly have to wait until the traffic is clear from it. So, do y'all just stop in the middle of roads, bogging down your own lanes, until the oncoming one is passable?

Most drivers are courteous and will slow or stop to give way, allowing you to safely cross the oncoming traffic when pulling out/in of a space.

The two main rules on UK roads are keep left, and Mirror-Signal-Manoeuvre. Observing those conventions tends to keep everyone safe.

We do have a phenomena here however, known as the Vauxhall driver. The one that doesn’t indicate, drives at 10 mph above the speed limit, up your backside, headlights on, music blasting.

 

[MacLeod]

Well, yeah, but there still has to be some level of mutual understanding going on that I'm unaware of, because just from my own regional understanding, a large number of inner city accidents occur, when one vehicle is crossing into oncoming traffic (In our cases to turn down a cross street at intersections) and the reaction speed of drivers in the lane they're entering is drastically reduced. This practice would seem to elevate that probability lol

I mean, so if you want to pull off into an oncoming lane, you clearly have to wait until the traffic is clear from it. So, do y'all just stop in the middle of roads, bogging down your own lanes, until the oncoming one is passable?

In terms of inner city driving most junctions would be controlled by a traffic light reducing the risk, and if there were too many accidents they would likely install red light cameras to stop people trying to run the light. For the ones that aren't another driver will often flash their lights indicate that they are allowing you to cross their lane so you can turn down a side street.

Most drivers are courteous and will slow or stop to give way, allowing you to safely cross the oncoming traffic when pulling out/in of a space.

The two main rules on UK roads are keep left, and Mirror-Signal-Manoeuvre. Observing those conventions tends to keep everyone safe.

We do have a phenomena here however, known as the Vauxhall driver. The one that doesn’t indicate, drives at 10 mph above the speed limit, up your backside, headlights on, music blasting.

LOL my experience is many drivers skip straight to the manoeuvre part, though then again most of my driving is done on rural and sub-urban roads.

I think you mean BMW driver.

 

[Mudd]

I thought he misspelled "American."

This nonsense about driving disappearing in urban areas is reminiscent of those skiffy movies that used to show New York in thirty or fifty years completely constructed of gleaming new futuristic structures.

 

[Pingfah]

Oh dear I'm so terribly sorry, I really don't want to derail this thread at all, but I'm a little upset at one place this conversation is going, I'm just going to say one thing and then I won't discuss further. Prostitution is rape, it's economic coercion, which is as valid a type of force as physical coercion. She doesn't want to have sex with you, she's only doing so because of pressure because she needs that money, which you'll only give her if she does sexual acts she wouldn't do with you otherwise. You can't have true consent where coercion's involved, I'm sorry, I know I'm going to be hated, but I have to say it, it really touches a nerve? It's such a very patriarchal construct, an idea you can "buy" women, it's exploitative and shouldn't be legal any more than indentured servitude contracts should be.

Okies I'm so very sorry, rant over, I just had to say something because I feel people might not have perspective, I promise I won't talk about it further in this thread, I don't want it to be closed?

I'm not going to disagree with you on your basic premise, however, for the same reason that I think all narcotics should be legal, I feel prostitution should be as well. Until we reach some sort of unlikely Star Trek utopia where poverty is wiped out, It will always exist.

Isn't it better that it should be regulated, and made as safe as possible for the women engaging in it, rather than criminalising and driving it underground? I think many of the problems we have with human trafficking and modern slavery are due to prostitution being prohibited, in the same way that prohibition of drugs has led to a global trade dominated by vicious gangs of criminals.

 

[Mojochi]

In terms of inner city driving most junctions would be controlled by a traffic light reducing the risk, and if there were too many accidents they would likely install red light cameras to stop people trying to run the light. For the ones that aren't another driver will often flash their lights indicate that they are allowing you to cross their lane so you can turn down a side street.

We do have times when we turn into oncoming lanes, as well. Turning onto cross streets, or turning into driveways, or parking lots on the opposite side from yours, etc... We'll even construct turning lanes expressly for that purpose, whenever possible

Because you also do it for the purpose of opposable street parking on opposite sides, it seems to me that you'd be engaged in it much more often than us, & the possibility of someone stopping a lane of traffic to wait for the ability to pop over there would be much more frequent. Like it could happen almost anywhere along the road? We got enough trouble with people wanting to kill each other for holding up traffic lol

I'ma go out on a limb & say somehow, I suspect y'all might be more patient drivers than us

 

[Butters]

I'ma go out on a limb & say somehow, I suspect y'all might be more patient drivers than us

We Brits are furious territorial drivers, but we do it a sense of fair play, a genetic disposition toward queuing, and at times, to insist that we go last. The latter can become quite confrontational.