7 ms·
In what way is this threatening their livelihood? I would call it neo-Luddism, in the broader sense that it’s driven by dislike and fear toward technology, but
by stochastic_monk 8y ago
In what way is this threatening their livelihood? I would call it neo-Luddism, in the broader sense that it’s driven by dislike and fear toward technology, but I wouldn’t assign Luddism.
The key quote for me: “They didn’t ask us if we wanted to be part of their beta test,” added his wife, who helps run the business.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- FreakyT 8y agoI was more going for "fearing new technology and therefore destroying it" angle.
- vvanders 8y agoI was ready to jump on the bandwagon of people hating new technology until I hit this section: > The trouble started, the couple said, when their 10-year-old son was nearly hit by one of the vehicles while he was playing in a nearby cul-de-sac. > “They said they need real-world examples, but I don’t want to be their real-world mistake,” said Mr. O’Polka, who runs his own company providing information technology to small businesses. I can see the perspective where if you've experienced an issue like this you might see them as more than an idle threat.
- Jach 8y agoReading that I wondered whether the 10 year old might have been throwing rocks at the car -- the car was just trying to defend itself... More seriously, cars of any sort are dangerous to children, self-driving or not, going on a crusade against self-driving cars for nearly hitting (or actually hitting) your boy makes as much sense as the same against the normal cars where that happens every day.
- ericd 8y agoI would actually be very happy if all cars, human driven and self-driving alike, were outlawed from our city center, and forced to just drive and park around the periphery. Some European cities are starting to do this. It completely changes the nature of the streets, from dangerous and noisy places that make you feel uneasy to walk near, into places that are safe for everyone to enjoy. So, bring on the crusades against cars.
- tfha 8y agoI'm all for creating cities where there are no cars, it's a big long term interest of mine to live in such a city. But I don't like the phrasing 'crusades against cars', because it makes it seem like cars are the bad guys. Cars are an incredibly important underpinning of society today, and we should remember that as we innovate certain parts of society to function better without them. We definitely want cars, and we definitely like cars. But we also like city centers that don't have cars, because it seems like that part of society functions better without them.
- ericd 8y agoMany people definitely don’t like or want cars in their current form, especially in the younger generations...
- CamperBob2 8y agoHere's an idea -- why don't you move to a place where your opinion prevails, rather than dictating your preferences to the rest of us? Whenever I argue for less regulation on something, I get told to move to Somalia. Shouldn't this work both ways?
- ericd 8y agoDo you know of a reasonably sized city in the US that offers what I’m talking about? Otherwise, no thanks, I’ll just argue for what I think is best here.
- 8y ago
- CodeMage 8y agoThey're not going on a crusade against self-driving cars, but against the "beta testing" of self-driving cars in their neighborhood, without their approval. It says so in the article, although it's a bit buried. I can't really fault them for that.
- sokoloff 8y agoThe companies have a permit from the government authority having jurisdiction, do they not? It’s patently unreasonable IMO to demand they secure individual permission anymore than Delta needs my individual permission to takeoff from the nearby airport.
- CodeMage 8y agoI guess I wasn't clear about my stance: I can't fault their grievances, but I can and do fault their methods. I'm pretty sure that obtaining the government permit didn't involve the constituency. There are ways of responding to that, without resorting to crime.
- darkerside 8y agoIt's called civil disobedience. You can fault it all you want, but there's precedent for it being there right side of history
- ThrowawayR2 8y agoCivil disobedience, in the cases where it was successfully used, was generally non-violent.
- computerex 8y agoThat's not a fair comparison at all. You seem to be under the impression that the law is always up to date with technology and the times. There is no precedent for self driving cars, and a lot of law has to be developed and precedent established before things start making sense in this context. I need not state this, but self driving cars pose a danger quite different from airplanes.
- reaperducer 8y agoOne difference is that if a person driving a car runs over a kid, the person driving the car (ideally) gets punished. If a self-driving car runs over a kid, what happens? A faceless tech company in California might possibly face a fine, and some bad press that fades away after a few days. The fine is probably less than the amount the company set aside for paying these kinds of fines during its "beta test" on real humans.
- kwhitefoot 8y agoIn some places (mostly Nordic countries I think) fines for driving offences are set at a proportion of your income. If that were done for driverless cars and treating the whole corporation as the driver it might make them pay a bit more attention. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it though.
- darkerside 8y agoAnd if the same human driver kept zooming through our cul-de-sac nearly hitting kids, you can bet there would be a confrontation
- Jach 8y agoHow do you zoom through a cul-de-sac?
- darkerside 8y agoI know you're being facetious but it happens. People do it to make U turns, or because they're lost, or because they live there, or they're visiting somebody. And "zooming" is relative. Going 25mph doesn't seem that fast to the driver, but it's really dangerous when there are kids playing in the street.