3 ms·

Cars are different than drones because we built our country around cars, and can't go back now. Drones are neat, and a good photography tool, but not quite as

Cars are different than drones because we built our country around cars, and can't go back now. Drones are neat, and a good photography tool, but not quite as useful as being able to move around the world at 60 miles per hour. That's why we tolerate cars -- the upsides outweigh the downsides.

stefan_ 6y ago
This is such an disingenuous argument. Automated speed enforcement is impossible "because we built our country around cars"? Increases in power, weight and size that far outstrip any justifiable utility? Shapes that are demonstrably harmful to pedestrian survival but we continue to build them?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- buran77 6y ago
  Comparing drones and cars is also very disingenuous given that cars and driving are heavily regulated and relatively well understood by people since they are an integral part of day to day life almost all over the world, while drones are still mostly seen as harmless toys and the vast majority of people operate and treat them as such. How many people take a car for a spin on a working airport runway because all that asphalt means it's a good place to have fun with the toy, especially without a driver's license or any idea of the rules of driving? Because plenty of people do it with drones. A better comparison would have been with laser pointers, another thing many people think is just a harmless toy. > Of course for the latter [cars] we even have demonstrable harm, not only aggressive overregulation This goes way beyond disingenuous. Do we have to wait for the harm to happen before considering regulation? There's a lot of truth in the popular wisdom that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" so I'm curious what's a solid argument to suddenly demand being reactive rather than proactive especially when it comes to lives. I mean other than the one making my point above, that people want to play with "the toy".
swiley 6y ago
>and can't go back now. We're going to have to: Less populated areas can't afford to maintain the infrastructure and more populated areas exceed roads in plains carrying individuals in cars ability to scale.
dirkt 6y ago
Assuming that by "our country" you mean the US: For example in Europe, car use is a lot less prevalent, walking and using a bike plays a much bigger role, and because of Covid, people are thinking about re-designing cities to rely even less [1] on cars. So it's perfectly possible to go back, given that people actually want it. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/a-car-free-blueprint-for-city-life-after-lockdown https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/a-car-fre...

stefan_ 6y ago

This is such an disingenuous argument. Automated speed enforcement is impossible "because we built our country around cars"? Increases in power, weight and size that far outstrip any justifiable utility? Shapes that are demonstrably harmful to pedestrian survival but we continue to build them?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
buran77 6y ago
Comparing drones and cars is also very disingenuous given that cars and driving are heavily regulated and relatively well understood by people since they are an integral part of day to day life almost all over the world, while drones are still mostly seen as harmless toys and the vast majority of people operate and treat them as such. How many people take a car for a spin on a working airport runway because all that asphalt means it's a good place to have fun with the toy, especially without a driver's license or any idea of the rules of driving? Because plenty of people do it with drones. A better comparison would have been with laser pointers, another thing many people think is just a harmless toy. > Of course for the latter [cars] we even have demonstrable harm, not only aggressive overregulation This goes way beyond disingenuous. Do we have to wait for the harm to happen before considering regulation? There's a lot of truth in the popular wisdom that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" so I'm curious what's a solid argument to suddenly demand being reactive rather than proactive especially when it comes to lives. I mean other than the one making my point above, that people want to play with "the toy".

swiley 6y ago

>and can't go back now. We're going to have to: Less populated areas can't afford to maintain the infrastructure and more populated areas exceed roads in plains carrying individuals in cars ability to scale.

dirkt 6y ago

Assuming that by "our country" you mean the US: For example in Europe, car use is a lot less prevalent, walking and using a bike plays a much bigger role, and because of Covid, people are thinking about re-designing cities to rely even less [1] on cars. So it's perfectly possible to go back, given that people actually want it. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/a-car-free-blueprint-for-city-life-after-lockdown https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/a-car-fre...