6 ms·

> Cyclists may be restricted and anything else that confuses AI drivers. I don't think that will ever happen. It may even be the opposite: AI will drive in a w

by DiThi 9y ago

> Cyclists may be restricted and anything else that confuses AI drivers. I don't think that will ever happen. It may even be the opposite: AI will drive in a way it will always be able to stop if there's a possibility that there's someone behind some obstacle that may jump to the road at any moment. Worst case scenario, beacons become mandatory. Cheap and anonymous beacons you have to carry when you're near a road. Smart phones may include such functionality.

mieseratte 9y ago
I cannot imagine mandatory tracking devices, anonymous or not, ever being mandatory in the United States. That would never fly.
- jrowley 9y ago
  Maybe not mandatory but otherwise you’re liable so your insurance company requires it.
  - macintux 9y ago
    Insurance companies mandating pedestrians carry a beacon? That's even less likely.
    - freeflight 9y ago
      They don't need to mandate it, at least not at first. They can just incentivize it the right way and people will willingly jump on board. "Install this app on your phone to make traffic lights recognize you when you approach them, for a timely shift to green light" "Install this app to collect pedestrian-points, exchange points for prices and discounts!" "Get a better insurance tier for installing this app which tracks your fitness. Do your daily 10.000 steps for a free <whatever>!" Once enough people jump on board, and it's generally accepted as being "normal because everybody uses it", then you can mandate it and the few people left who resist can easily be branded as "paranoid tinfoil-hat people" to marginalize their opposition.
      - macintux 9y ago
        If you're relying on a smartphone to host a beacon, isn't that already a solved problem? Smartphones are radio transceivers, I would imagine any anonymous beacon technology wouldn't be noticeably louder than what smartphones are already emitting.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    Several states already have laws preventing that requirement. In those states, location-tracking must be opt-in, and must offer an economic benefit to the policyholder.
    - notyourday 9y ago
      Silly rabbit. We jack up the price without a location tracking and offer a 10k incentive to do location tracking. No location tracking = new policy price Location tracking = new policy price - 10K. New policy price = old policy price + 10k
      - gamblor956 9y ago
        Any insurer which raises rates to pay for this would quickly lose most of its business unless they're (a) the only insurer in the state or (b) convince the rest of the insurers in-state to collude on pricing. The first isn't the case of any state with respect to auto insurance, and the second is a state and federal felony punishable by many years in jail for any executive stupid enough to participate. And that's assuming they can get away with the rate increases in the first place. States like CA have insurance commissioners empowered to review and reject rate increases.
        woahdudebro 9y ago
        >the second is a state and federal felony punishable by many years in jail for any executive stupid enough to participate. Not true for insurance companies, they are exempt from antitrust law under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran–Ferguson_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran–Ferguson_Act
        notyourday 9y ago
        You do know that progressive has been doing it for a few years, right? With that little device that you can plug into your car to lower the rates?
- 5555624 9y ago
  While I agree, car manufacturers are already monitoring and storing this data. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2018/01/15/big-brother-on-wheels-why-your-car-company-may-know-more-about-you-than-your-spouse/?utm_term=.24eae6c93318 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2018/01/1...) If the find they can sell it, they will.
- geofft 9y ago
  This is the same United States where just about everyone already carries a tracking device by choice, where lots of people have installed 24/7 network-connected microphones in their homes, and where everyone believes you need ID to fly. This is the same United States where a common political argument is that of course ID should be required to vote because ID is required for everything else, and citizens should just carry ID. This is the same US where a special police force arrests and detains citizens and forces them to prove that they're actually citizens. It's been a long while since we actually objected to the "papers, please" world. After all, these beacons are not mandatory - they're only needed if you want to use the roads as a pedestrian or cyclist. If you don't, you can drive your car like any real (read: non-poor) American, or use a taxi or bus. Pedestrians already aren't permitted on highways, what's so different about restricting pedestrians on surface streets? And if you don't carry the beacon, that's not illegal, it's just your fault if you get hit by a car. It's not the government forcing you to carry it, it's algorithms and corporations, which makes it okay, right? If these beacons are produced by the free market, why should government regulation step in and stifle innovation?
  - mieseratte 9y ago
    I'm going to assume this is a good-faith argument and not a "bury them in BS" reply: > This is the same United States where just about everyone already carries a tracking device by choice. Sure, that's a very reasonable counter-point, however not everyone does. > where lots of people have installed 24/7 network-connected microphones in their homes Plenty of folks find asking a wiretap for pancake recipes fine, and there are plenty that balk at the thought. This Christmas my sister bought everyone Amazon's cute little NSA Listening Post™ - was fun how quickly the look of disgust crossed their face when I explained that every conversation would be recorded and store in Amazon's data centers... and probably a few three-letter agencies. > and where everyone believes you need ID to fly. This is the same United States where a common political argument is that of course ID should be required to vote because ID is required for everything else, and citizens should just carry ID. This is the same US where a special police force arrests and detains citizens and forces them to prove that they're actually citizens. It's been a long while since we actually objected to the "papers, please" world. There is an insanely large leap between having an ID for a few specific purposes and being mandated to carry a homing beacon. > they're only needed if you want to use the roads as a pedestrian or cyclist. The post I replied to did not state "to use the roads" - it stated general use of mandatory beacons. You're moving the goalposts. > And if you don't carry the beacon, that's not illegal, it's just your fault if you get hit by a car. It's not the government forcing you to carry it, it's algorithms and corporations, which makes it okay, right? If these beacons are produced by the free market, why should government regulation step in and stifle innovation? If the AppleMobile hits me because I don't carry an iPhone, you can best believe they will be sued into oblivion. Remember, this is litigious America! The Evangelical community would surely denounce a mandatory tracking device as the work of the Antichrist, and I would love to watch politicians shit on that high-turnout demographic.
- DiThi 9y ago
  Everybody misinterpreted what I've intended. SHORT RANGE BEACONS. Enough to be "seen" by car AI through obstacles. Here's the imaginary conversation between car and beacon: - "Is someone behind that parked van?" - "Yes" - "Who?" - "Mind your own business, just slow down in case I decide to jump to the road, ok?"
  - jstanley 9y ago
    If the beacons don't identify their carrier, you could very easily troll AI cars by leaving unmanned beacons lying around.
    - DiThi 9y ago
      Good point... Well, that seems easy to police: Have one car patrolling for beacons not attached to what appears to be a person or bike. The only consequence of such troll beacons are cars slowing down on that point, that's all.
- upvotinglurker 9y ago
  Would a beacon have to be a personally associated tracking device? I can imagine carrying a device that just broadcasts a generic "cyclist here, moving this speed and direction" signal, without identifying or being registered to me (bought with cash)

by DiThi 9y ago

mieseratte 9y ago

I cannot imagine mandatory tracking devices, anonymous or not, ever being mandatory in the United States. That would never fly.

jrowley 9y ago
Maybe not mandatory but otherwise you’re liable so your insurance company requires it.
- macintux 9y ago
  Insurance companies mandating pedestrians carry a beacon? That's even less likely.
  - freeflight 9y ago
    They don't need to mandate it, at least not at first. They can just incentivize it the right way and people will willingly jump on board. "Install this app on your phone to make traffic lights recognize you when you approach them, for a timely shift to green light" "Install this app to collect pedestrian-points, exchange points for prices and discounts!" "Get a better insurance tier for installing this app which tracks your fitness. Do your daily 10.000 steps for a free <whatever>!" Once enough people jump on board, and it's generally accepted as being "normal because everybody uses it", then you can mandate it and the few people left who resist can easily be branded as "paranoid tinfoil-hat people" to marginalize their opposition.
    - macintux 9y ago
      If you're relying on a smartphone to host a beacon, isn't that already a solved problem? Smartphones are radio transceivers, I would imagine any anonymous beacon technology wouldn't be noticeably louder than what smartphones are already emitting.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  Several states already have laws preventing that requirement. In those states, location-tracking must be opt-in, and must offer an economic benefit to the policyholder.
  - notyourday 9y ago
    Silly rabbit. We jack up the price without a location tracking and offer a 10k incentive to do location tracking. No location tracking = new policy price Location tracking = new policy price - 10K. New policy price = old policy price + 10k
    - gamblor956 9y ago
      Any insurer which raises rates to pay for this would quickly lose most of its business unless they're (a) the only insurer in the state or (b) convince the rest of the insurers in-state to collude on pricing. The first isn't the case of any state with respect to auto insurance, and the second is a state and federal felony punishable by many years in jail for any executive stupid enough to participate. And that's assuming they can get away with the rate increases in the first place. States like CA have insurance commissioners empowered to review and reject rate increases.
      - woahdudebro 9y ago
        >the second is a state and federal felony punishable by many years in jail for any executive stupid enough to participate. Not true for insurance companies, they are exempt from antitrust law under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran–Ferguson_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran–Ferguson_Act
      - notyourday 9y ago
        You do know that progressive has been doing it for a few years, right? With that little device that you can plug into your car to lower the rates?
5555624 9y ago
While I agree, car manufacturers are already monitoring and storing this data. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2018/01/15/big-brother-on-wheels-why-your-car-company-may-know-more-about-you-than-your-spouse/?utm_term=.24eae6c93318 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2018/01/1...) If the find they can sell it, they will.
geofft 9y ago
This is the same United States where just about everyone already carries a tracking device by choice, where lots of people have installed 24/7 network-connected microphones in their homes, and where everyone believes you need ID to fly. This is the same United States where a common political argument is that of course ID should be required to vote because ID is required for everything else, and citizens should just carry ID. This is the same US where a special police force arrests and detains citizens and forces them to prove that they're actually citizens. It's been a long while since we actually objected to the "papers, please" world. After all, these beacons are not mandatory - they're only needed if you want to use the roads as a pedestrian or cyclist. If you don't, you can drive your car like any real (read: non-poor) American, or use a taxi or bus. Pedestrians already aren't permitted on highways, what's so different about restricting pedestrians on surface streets? And if you don't carry the beacon, that's not illegal, it's just your fault if you get hit by a car. It's not the government forcing you to carry it, it's algorithms and corporations, which makes it okay, right? If these beacons are produced by the free market, why should government regulation step in and stifle innovation?
- mieseratte 9y ago
  I'm going to assume this is a good-faith argument and not a "bury them in BS" reply: > This is the same United States where just about everyone already carries a tracking device by choice. Sure, that's a very reasonable counter-point, however not everyone does. > where lots of people have installed 24/7 network-connected microphones in their homes Plenty of folks find asking a wiretap for pancake recipes fine, and there are plenty that balk at the thought. This Christmas my sister bought everyone Amazon's cute little NSA Listening Post™ - was fun how quickly the look of disgust crossed their face when I explained that every conversation would be recorded and store in Amazon's data centers... and probably a few three-letter agencies. > and where everyone believes you need ID to fly. This is the same United States where a common political argument is that of course ID should be required to vote because ID is required for everything else, and citizens should just carry ID. This is the same US where a special police force arrests and detains citizens and forces them to prove that they're actually citizens. It's been a long while since we actually objected to the "papers, please" world. There is an insanely large leap between having an ID for a few specific purposes and being mandated to carry a homing beacon. > they're only needed if you want to use the roads as a pedestrian or cyclist. The post I replied to did not state "to use the roads" - it stated general use of mandatory beacons. You're moving the goalposts. > And if you don't carry the beacon, that's not illegal, it's just your fault if you get hit by a car. It's not the government forcing you to carry it, it's algorithms and corporations, which makes it okay, right? If these beacons are produced by the free market, why should government regulation step in and stifle innovation? If the AppleMobile hits me because I don't carry an iPhone, you can best believe they will be sued into oblivion. Remember, this is litigious America! The Evangelical community would surely denounce a mandatory tracking device as the work of the Antichrist, and I would love to watch politicians shit on that high-turnout demographic.
DiThi 9y ago
Everybody misinterpreted what I've intended. SHORT RANGE BEACONS. Enough to be "seen" by car AI through obstacles. Here's the imaginary conversation between car and beacon: - "Is someone behind that parked van?" - "Yes" - "Who?" - "Mind your own business, just slow down in case I decide to jump to the road, ok?"
- jstanley 9y ago
  If the beacons don't identify their carrier, you could very easily troll AI cars by leaving unmanned beacons lying around.
  - DiThi 9y ago
    Good point... Well, that seems easy to police: Have one car patrolling for beacons not attached to what appears to be a person or bike. The only consequence of such troll beacons are cars slowing down on that point, that's all.
upvotinglurker 9y ago
Would a beacon have to be a personally associated tracking device? I can imagine carrying a device that just broadcasts a generic "cyclist here, moving this speed and direction" signal, without identifying or being registered to me (bought with cash)