5 ms·

I 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 s

I 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 ago
Reading 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    I'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 ago
      Many people definitely don’t like or want cars in their current form, especially in the younger generations...
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    Here'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 ago
      Do 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.
      - CamperBob2 8y ago
        Do you know of a reasonably sized city in the US that offers what I’m talking about? No. Ever stop to wonder if there might perhaps be a reason for that? (That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if either NYC or Seattle comes close to what you're asking for, or will soon.)
        ericd 8y ago
        There are a bunch of reasons, but Municode is a large part of it. It’s a big part of the reason for the feeling of sameness of towns across the US. But what’s the reason you were trying to point out?
        CamperBob2 8y ago
        The reason is that almost nobody wants to ban cars from the center of almost any American city. It turns out that being able to drive in cities is considered useful by many people. You can stick around and speak up for your point of view, certainly, but unless you pick one of a very few places like the aforementioned NYC and Seattle, you've got a difficult case to make. You certainly won't achieve any traction in Arizona, where the events described in this article took place.
      - commandlinefan 8y ago
        Well, there aren’t many cars in Somalia.
- CodeMage 8y ago
  They'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 ago
    The 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 ago
      I 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 ago
        It'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 ago
        Civil disobedience, in the cases where it was successfully used, was generally non-violent.
    - computerex 8y ago
      That'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 ago
  One 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 ago
    In 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 ago
  And 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 ago
    How do you zoom through a cul-de-sac?
    - darkerside 8y ago
      I 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.

Jach 8y ago

Reading 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 ago
I 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 ago
  I'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 ago
    Many people definitely don’t like or want cars in their current form, especially in the younger generations...
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  Here'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 ago
    Do 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.
    - CamperBob2 8y ago
      Do you know of a reasonably sized city in the US that offers what I’m talking about? No. Ever stop to wonder if there might perhaps be a reason for that? (That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if either NYC or Seattle comes close to what you're asking for, or will soon.)
      - ericd 8y ago
        There are a bunch of reasons, but Municode is a large part of it. It’s a big part of the reason for the feeling of sameness of towns across the US. But what’s the reason you were trying to point out?
        CamperBob2 8y ago
        The reason is that almost nobody wants to ban cars from the center of almost any American city. It turns out that being able to drive in cities is considered useful by many people. You can stick around and speak up for your point of view, certainly, but unless you pick one of a very few places like the aforementioned NYC and Seattle, you've got a difficult case to make. You certainly won't achieve any traction in Arizona, where the events described in this article took place.
    - commandlinefan 8y ago
      Well, there aren’t many cars in Somalia.
CodeMage 8y ago
They'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 ago
  The 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      It'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 ago
        Civil disobedience, in the cases where it was successfully used, was generally non-violent.
  - computerex 8y ago
    That'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 ago
One 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 ago
  In 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 ago
And 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 ago
  How do you zoom through a cul-de-sac?
  - darkerside 8y ago
    I 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.