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

[Relayer1]

I've never felt the urge to drive so never bothered learning, but I'm interested in self driving cars. Once the teething problems are resolved and the technology matures, I'm sure they'll be safer.

I can't really imagine mass sales of them though - I see it as the eventual replacement for car ownership with people using some kind of self driving Ubers.

 

[Marynator]

I've never at all understood peoples' fascination with driving, I feel it's a chore I have to do to go places. I totally so much prefer being a passenger. I'd love having my car drive itself, if I could just sit and relax and it'd take me somewhere I'd sign up right now for that. I don't like mass transit so much because it's crowded and I like my privacy, in my car I can just relax and listen to my music, and it'd be so much more relaxing if I could be alone but not have to actually drive!

 

[Kor]

Personally, I love driving out on the open highway, taking in hundreds of miles of gorgeous scenery for as far as the eye can see, with the radio playing some classic tunes.

Driverless cars are so far unable to deal with motorcycles, runners, fast bicycles, especially e-bikes and mopeds/scooters which are like unguided rockets zipping through traffic.. guess what we have in droves here in the Netherlands? LOTS AND LOTS of bicycles and scooters.. the carnage, the carnage.. there will be a bloody smear on every corner!

Perhaps motorcycles, scooters, and bicycles should be automated as well.

Kor

 

[scotpens]

I've never at all understood peoples' fascination with driving, I feel it's a chore I have to do to go places.

I've never understood people's fascination with sports. Or video gaming. Or cooking. Or clothes. Or a hundred other things.

De gustibus non est disputandum, to coin a phrase.

 

[Mojochi]

In this case, I'd personally give more weight to people's liberty to not be endangered by large, fast-moving machines, if such machines could be rendered safer through proven technology.

I've never endangered anybody with my vehicles, because I'm a responsible driver. You must mean the probability of endangerment. I got bad news for you. In your life, something will eventually endanger you. Squeezing every bit of freedom from your fellow man, for the sake of lowering your chance of getting hurt is still tyranny. In the broadest sense, My hope of safety is less important than your freedom, & until everybody in the free world starts remembering that, we've got a big problem coming down the line

The fewer riders who wear helmets, the more likely they are to get injured, which clogs hospitals and puts more strain on our health care system. That's the bottom line, really.

Ahh, the strain on health care argument. So your idea of a free society is that people be mandated to live as safely as law making bodies decide. Forgive me, but that doesn't sound like liberty to me, at all. Quite the opposite. It doesn't even sound like I own myself anymore. It sounds like a dystopian nightmare, where I'm not allowed to eat a cookie, or drink a beer, drive a car, eat gluten, rock climb, refuse a flu shot, etc...

More helmets is less of a strain? Actually, less motorcycles is too, less cars, fast food, alcohol, drugs, sex. The list of ways to force people to behave "well" is endless

Rule #1, People get sick, people get hurt & people die. Rule #2, No law you make will stop rule #1. It's why I pay for health insurance. It's also why I don't expect the government to give it to me for free, because I'M in control of me, & I have every intention on keeping it as much that way as possible.

Your "right to life" is not a right to safety at everyone else's expense. It just means that life you got? No one can willfully take it from you, & we have that in writing, simply because that's what people use to do before we did

No but vehicles don't last forever.

Neither do people. I'm just banking on being dead in 35 years or so, & expect nothing too drastically infringing is able to be pushed through in that time, because y'all are seriously forgetting what it's all about imho.

Edit: Actually I know people with 70 year old cars. There's no doubt that on my death bed, hopefully a long time from now, many manual powered cars will still be used, no matter how things have changed

 

[StarCruiser]

Ah, all is not rosy: http://driving.ca/auto-news/news/publics-trust-in-self-driving-cars-is-plunging-for-good-reason

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.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

IIt sounds like a dystopian nightmare, where I'm not allowed to eat a cookie, or drink a beer, drive a car, eat gluten, rock climb, refuse a flu shot, etc...

Refuse a flu shot, huh? That sounds familiar.

 

[Mojochi]

Refuse a flu shot, huh? That sounds familiar.

I don't want to get too far off topic, so I'll respond as brief as possible, but I'm not anti-vaccine. In fact, I work in a hospital, & as per my employment am required to get many vaccines, routinely, & I'm fine with that, because they're good & necessary vaccines

I just don't get the flu shot, (Anymore) because #1, it's never worked for me, #2, it's not a vaccine that eradicates all flu, the way MMR works. It's a vaccine that's got a potential of minimalizing the probability of getting one strain of flu, that they almost never know is the flu that will be prevalent in any given season, or not.

In short, the flu shot is a shit vaccine. It's a weather forecast with a needle, & #3, while I have no scientific data to support it, from my own experience of having gotten the flu shot from my employer, for 12 years straight, & had 12 straight years of finding myself stricken with sinus & bronchial infections, at random times during flu season, that lingered for weeks on end, I've begun to consider the possibility that having gotten the flu shot might have compromised me in some way, because in the subsequent 4 years of having not gotten it, I've not had so much as sniffle, & while that's not science, I can't ignore it. It's my experience, & it has value.

But because people are so hell bent on forcing their take, mine is dismissed out of hand. Interestingly enough, I work in healthcare, & even my employer doesn't require me to get a flu shot (They recommend as forcefully as possible, but don't require it). I just observe their alternative of wearing a mask to prevent potential transmission (I wear a mask for my job most often anyhow). Care to hazard a guess as to why even a hospital doesn't require it? It's probably because if they did, & all the people who still get it came back & said you forced me to get something that didn't work, they'd be in breach of trust to some extent.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Personally, I love driving out on the open highway, taking in hundreds of miles of gorgeous scenery for as far as the eye can see, with the radio playing some classic tunes.

And with a self-driving car, you could still do that, and be able to focus even more on the gorgeous scenery!

I got bad news for you. In your life, something will eventually endanger you. Squeezing every bit of freedom from your fellow man, for the sake of lowering your chance of getting hurt is still tyranny. In the broadest sense, My hope of safety is less important than your freedom, & until everybody in the free world starts remembering that, we've got a big problem coming down the line

I honestly don't get this argument. Tyranny? Government is literally in the business of creating rules for public safety, it's one of the major things they do. You already don't have the freedom to do anything you may want.

It's not quite the same as your beer and cookie argument, if you're consuming them in your own home. (If you're consuming the beer in public, then the government regulates that too.) By definition, when you're driving, you're using the public road system, and the government has every right to tell you how you are allowed to use it.

I used to have a professor who, when teaching about rights and freedoms, used to say, "My right to swing my arm freely ends where your nose begins". Many "freedoms" are curtailed or limited in the interests of public safety and the greater good.

 

[Mojochi]

I honestly don't get this argument. Tyranny? Government is literally in the business of creating rules for public safety, it's one of the major things they do. You already don't have the freedom to do anything you may want.

It's not quite the same as your beer and cookie argument, if you're consuming them in your own home. (If you're consuming the beer in public, then the government regulates that too.) By definition, when you're driving, you're using the public road system, and the government has every right to tell you how you are allowed to use it.

I used to have a professor who, when teaching about rights and freedoms, used to say, "My right to swing my arm freely ends where your nose begins". Many "freedoms" are curtailed or limited in the interests of public safety and the greater good.

Regulate, fine, but wear does the government telling me I must protect myself by wearing a harness or helmet reach your nose? That's the cookie/beer separate argument I was pointing out. The restriction of things based solely on them being "Bad" for me. Those are not infringements on anyone else, & as long as I'm not harming anyone else, then you've no right to dictate to me.

The area we are trespassing is this idea of would be safeness. My manually operating my own vehicle isn't hurting you, like the argument for public smoking restrictions, for example, that they say is hurting other people exposed to it

Not my car, until I do something wrong with it, & everyone wants to use statistical analysis to project that I will, & therefore shouldn't have the liberty. Then I shouldn't have the liberty to manually operate ANYTHING, which basically equates to "You do nothing without we tell you that you can" Still don't sound like freedom to me

When they put street lights & roads lines up that would be safer, that's regulating IT, which is terrific. When they start telling me I'm not allowed to ever do a thing because it would be safer, that's dictating my existence, & I'm not down for that

Edit: For example, consider prostitution, that's prohibition is arguably safer for everyone, where the spread of STDs is concerned. The same argument can be made for prohibiting sex altogether. We'd all be safer if not allowed to have sex

 

[Kor]

...
It does. There's no danger to anyone else from a body boouncing around the pavement, any more than the rest of the vehicle... except to the drivers themselves. ...

If a body suddenly bounced out into the pavement in front of my vehicle while I was driving, then I would instinctively swerve to avoid it. This action might in turn cause me to run my vehicle into a tree or a fire hydrant or a pedestrian or a vehicle in the next lane. I would say that qualifies as a danger.

Kor

 

[Mojochi]

If a body suddenly bounced out into the pavement in front of my vehicle while I was driving, then I would instinctively swerve to avoid it. This action might in turn cause me to run my vehicle into a tree or a fire hydrant or a pedestrian or a vehicle in the next lane. I would say that qualifies as a danger.

Kor

"Any more" danger than any other part of a vehicle breaking away, it would not pose, or a wild animal, or a bicyclist who fell, or what... ever. That was my full statement

My body is no more a significant danger than any other part of a vehicle, that might break away & cause collateral damage, least of all, enough to warrant restricting my freedom to be on a motorcycle at all, which you've basically argued against my freedom to do

 

[Santaman]

Personally, I love driving out on the open highway, taking in hundreds of miles of gorgeous scenery for as far as the eye can see, with the radio playing some classic tunes.



Perhaps motorcycles, scooters, and bicycles should be automated as well.

Kor

Impossible, there's no way to miniturerize the tech and no one could afford to buy them if they would manage it, same with driverless cars, nice for the rich people, or vehicles driving only the same route every time and that is about it, cars and their electronics are a pest to maintain already, some are already so bug ridden that they break down every other day and can't be fixed unless they're picked up and brought to a dealer selling that specific brand and all those computers and sensors will fail at some point making the car a driving death trap for its occupants or people near it.

 

[Marynator]

I understand what @Mojochi is saying, at least I feel he's talking about bodily autonomy to a big degree, and it's always very important to consider just how important that always is, right?

I disagree on a few things, like I do believe our government can regulate safety, even when it seems to you like it's restricting freedom and not hurting anyone. Like for one thing, it could hurt someone psychologically, right? Like if you're in an accident and you die because you're not wearing a seat belt, that person who hit you might really suffer the rest of her life because you died, couldn't she? I mean, something like wearing a seat belt seems like such a minor inconvenience to have to do when it can save lives, right? Oh and also like sometimes you need rules like that so people will protect others, otherwise maybe a parent wouldn't buckle in his child because it's not a law? Then his child could die in a car accident, right?

So basically I think I'm saying I understand where Mojochi's coming from in theory, but I disagree things like helmets and seat belts are burdensome violations of bodily autonomy?

 

[Mojochi]

I understand what @Mojochi is saying, at least I feel he's talking about bodily autonomy to a big degree, and it's always very important to consider just how important that always is, right?

I disagree on a few things, like I do believe our government can regulate safety, even when it seems to you like it's restricting freedom and not hurting anyone. Like for one thing, it could hurt someone psychologically, right? Like if you're in an accident and you die because you're not wearing a seat belt, that person who hit you might really suffer the rest of her life because you died, couldn't she? I mean, something like wearing a seat belt seems like such a minor inconvenience to have to do when it can save lives, right? Oh and also like sometimes you need rules like that so people will protect others, otherwise maybe a parent wouldn't buckle in his child because it's not a law? Then his child could die in a car accident, right?

So basically I think I'm saying I understand where Mojochi's coming from in theory, but I disagree things like helmets and seat belts are burdensome violations of bodily autonomy?

I've said nothing about freedom from responsibility to look after people you're charged to care for, like your kids. As a parent, you should be required by law to protect you child with a harness in a car. I'm even fine with requiring me to wear one if I have a child in the car with me, because I'm acting as guardian there

I'm also not saying you shouldn't wear a seatbelt or helmet. DO. They're safer. I'm simply saying the government has no place mandating it on me. It's overreach

As for psychological damage? That's overreach too. The potential psychological damage of someone who uses alcohol, to their spouse, is just as relevant. Do we prohibit alcohol use... Again?

Humans are not designed to move at 60+MPH. If there's dangers to you when you are, that's the source. Trying to tell me how to live, so you'll be safer from the dangerous decisions you make is tyrannical

Edit: I didn't mean you personally, Mary lol

 

[Marynator]

I totally see what you're saying, and oh dear don't worry I didn't take it personally, lol, but I feel there's sort of a limit?

I mean too, like driving is a privilege, right? It's not like the government's really saying you have to wear seat belts, it's more sort of saying "You can drive a car, but if you do you need to wear this for your safety"? I don't know, I guess like if you don't drive you don't have to worry about it, right? And I also don't feel wearing a seat belt is really invasive, so to me there's a limit because wearing a seat belt isn't really hurting you, but I feel it's a reasonable precaution?

Just my opinion of course!

 

[Leviathan]

You humans can't get decent rules on guns or drugs...but you figure cars will be easy? Interesting.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

It doesn't even sound like I own myself anymore. It sounds like a dystopian nightmare, where I'm not allowed to eat a cookie, or drink a beer, drive a car, eat gluten, rock climb, refuse a flu shot, etc...

More helmets is less of a strain? Actually, less motorcycles is too, less cars, fast food, alcohol, drugs, sex. The list of ways to force people to behave "well" is endless

For example, consider prostitution, that's prohibition is arguably safer for everyone, where the spread of STDs is concerned. The same argument can be made for prohibiting sex altogether. We'd all be safer if not allowed to have sex

What if they ban slippery slope arguments? Wouldn't it be safer if they just banned slopes altogether? Bye bye skiing, and mountains, and wheelchair ramps, and triangles. And shouldn't they also ban anything slippery in the name of public safety? Goodbye water, and KY Jelly. Nope, sex is going to be frictiony as hell from now on right up until you die of thirst. That's tyranny, folks.

 

[Mojochi]

I mean too, like driving is a privilege, right? It's not like the government's really saying you have to wear seat belts, it's more sort of saying "You can drive a car, but if you do you need to wear this for your safety"?

It's saying "You can only do the thing you're doing, if done the way we tell you, as was decided is in your best interest". I'll decide what's in my best interest. That's personal agency, & it's the only thing that matters in a free society, imho

... wearing a seat belt isn't really hurting you, but I feel it's a reasonable precaution?

You don't legally require reasonable precautions. Exercising every day is a reasonable precaution. We would never require that by law, & my suggesting that we shouldn't is in no way advocating its abandonment in practice. I do exercise every day. I do wear a motorcycle helmet. I don't think it's the government's place to mandate that I do, on the grounds that it's in my best interest. I'm not a ward of the state

What if they ban slippery slope arguments? Wouldn't it be safer if they just banned slopes altogether? Bye bye skiing, and mountains, and wheelchair ramps, and triangles. And shouldn't they also ban anything slippery in the name of public safety? Goodbye water, and KY Jelly. Nope, sex is going to be frictiony as hell from now on right up until you die of thirst. That's tyranny, folks.

If I seem ridiculous, it's only because it's a ridiculous world. Most of what you quoted of mine, drugs, alcohol, prostitution, have already had bans on them, & now a push for one on firearms. There's even local ordinances on how much unhealthy dietary choices you can purchase. I'm just following a thread here, & there's folks in this one suggesting a ban on manually operated motor vehicles, were there to be a viable automated variant.

It's not a slippery slope argument, if you're already sliding on it, Dude. It's just... other examples. I realize you're a mod here. Is this your way of saying I should pack it up now? I've said my piece, & am more than willing to do so. I'm not trying to cause disruption

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I realize you're a mod here. Is this your way of saying I should pack it up now? I've said my piece, & am more than willing to do so. I'm not trying to cause disruption

Oh no, not at all. I was just using "ban" because you were talking about the government potentially banning certain activities, not to imply that you had to stop talking about this. I largely disagree with your opinion on this issue, but you've made your point in a completely civil manner, so no issues there. Please, carry on.