9 ms·

Amazement, and a wistful longing for a simple freedom enjoyed in the distant, halcyon past. Before nervous, frightened people in denial of their own conspicuous

by sipior 15y ago

Amazement, and a wistful longing for a simple freedom enjoyed in the distant, halcyon past. Before nervous, frightened people in denial of their own conspicuous mortality decided to remove yet another source of fun and excitement because of the irresponsible actions of a few. I think the leading cause of death in "a few decades" will be profound boredom. (Also, whilst a computer may indeed be well-suited to drive my car as a matter of principle, there is still the small matter of it being programmed by humans...)

swombat 15y ago
Deadly car accidents aren't the actions of "a few". Anyone can cause one through inattentive driving, tiredness, mobile phone usage, and of course simple lack of experience. The other tragic thing about car accidents is that your mistakes can kill not only yourself, but also many other people. You might argue (though I'd disagree) that someone who's been driving for 10 hours straight deserves to die in an accident, but you certainly can't argue that the family of 5 that he crashed into head-on deserved it too. To suggest these countless people need to die to satisfy your need for thrills is somewhat like suggesting that vaccines are boring because they take away the excitement of not knowing which of your children will live to an adult age.
- speckledjim 15y ago
  The car has certainly done far far far more good than bad. That's why we put up with the downside (a few deaths a day). The issue is that there's a small minority of bad drivers who cause accidents. Removing everyones freedom to drive because of those few isn't very fair, and would result in a boring 'locked down' society.
  - Goronmon 15y ago
    Removing everyones freedom to drive because of those few isn't very fair, and would result in a boring 'locked down' society. You can't expect a 'freedom' to exist in perpetuity for something that can easily result in the deaths of others by the actions of one person. I'd put it in the same category as things like not allowing people to smoke in workplaces, public buildings, etc, or allowing people to shoot firearms in the backyards of their suburban homes. I just don't see there being a 'freedom to manually control tons of metal for the purposes of transportation' trumping the immense amount of benefits to safety, among others.
    - speckledjim 15y ago
      We have umpteen checks to ensure drivers are as safe as they can be. Deaths in the US from driving have come down from around 120 a day in 2000 to around 90 a day now. In the UK, it's about 8 deaths a day from driving. The road network is now eight times safer per mile travelled than it was in 1966. Just for comparison, around 400+ people die each day in the UK from cancer. Instead of wasting a ton of money making robotic driverless cars because it sounds good, I'd invest that money straight into cancer research.
      - Goronmon 15y ago
        Why waste a ton of money on cancer research that has a good chance of saving no lives, when you can invest money into driverless vehicles that are guaranteed to save lives?
        speckledjim 15y ago
        Driverless vehicles won't prevent all deaths on the road. Pedestrians and cyclists account for quite a few.
        swombat 15y ago
        Pedestrians and cyclists are killed by... drivers. Ok, maybe some cyclists die of collisions with other cyclists, but I'd wager they're a tiny minority.
        darklajid 15y ago
        Riight.. And your uber-safe automatic car is able to react if I, the stupid pedestrian (or worse, because I'm faster, biker) cross a road without looking. No matter how fast you react, if you go at reasonable speeds and I'm the idiot, you're going to hit me (kill is optional). I think that's what your parent poster was trying to say (because that way it is a sensible argument). Whatever you implement in vehicle safety: If I'm able to throw myself in front of the thing in the last moment, hopefully because I'm a moron and not intentionally, then no technology on earth can avoid the accident. Unless... You want to add mandatory robot bikes and robot shoes...
- artmageddon 15y ago
  >is somewhat like suggesting that vaccines are boring because they take away the excitement of not knowing which of your children will live to an adult age. I realize you use the word "somewhat", but I still stand by sipior. Autos are, for many, a necessary mode of transportation that have the unfortunate potential to be abused or misused. Knives can be used to prepare food or kill/maim others, as well. I hope no one thinks we should build robots to do all of our cooking for us on the chance we might slice a finger.
  - swombat 15y ago
    Slicing a finger and losing an entire family in a horrible car crash are hardly comparable. Your comparison is absurd. If 80 people died every day (source: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx ) in the US from chopping up their vegetables, sometimes entire families slaughtered by a wayward broccoli stem, building robots to do our vegetable-chopping for us should definitely be a high priority. Bear in mind I'm not advocating the removal of cars - merely that great efforts should be made to introduce self-driving cars over the next generation or two.
    - scythe 15y ago
      >Your comparison is absurd. A strange complaint, coming from someone who not twenty minutes ago compared mandatory automated cars to vaccination, the former being a significant infringement on freedom for an undetermined safety gain and the latter being the most successful medical program in the history of humanity. >Bear in mind I'm not advocating the removal of cars - merely that great efforts should be made to introduce self-driving cars over the next generation or two. Okay, and that's fair, but this thread started with someone saying automated cars should be mandatory, so surely you'll understand if we choose to argue against that point? I support computers being used to improve highway safety. I am not yet ready to conclude that the best way to go about this is to mandate self-driving cars for everyone, no exceptions.
      - trobertson 15y ago
        Perhaps the mandate should be for those found guilty of reckless driving, aggressive driving, DUIs, vehicular homicide, etc. You get the privilege of driving until you are seen unfit to drive.
lemmsjid 15y ago
People found ways to not be bored in the millions of years before the invention of the automobile. The thrill of riding a horse. The thrill of running when you're fit. Personally, I find driving to be the definition of boring. The distant, halcyon past is the brief decades (out of the entirety of human history) where we were able to live under the illusion that we could build a road system that would handle the burgeoning amount of traffic without gridlock.
- sipior 15y ago
  I'll take you at your word regarding your examples of "thrills", although I would note that the horse is probably less impressed :-) I'm not sure about your last point. Enormous strides have been made in designing road networks that are far more tolerant of heavy loads. But gridlock is also in some sense a social problem, and so a purely technological or algorithmic solution is perhaps unrealistic.
orangecat 15y ago
Before nervous, frightened people in denial of their own conspicuous mortality decided to remove yet another source of fun and excitement because of the irresponsible actions of a few. In general, driving is not a source of fun and excitement. In fact, commute times are strongly and negatively associated with self-reported happiness.
- sipior 15y ago
  People drive for reasons other than commuting, of course. I happen to like driving (especially since I learned to drive a manual). I'm sorry if you don't. Your last point is certainly true. I used to commute to work via a combination of bike and train; getting a car cut my commute in half, and I am decidedly happier for it.
ugh 15y ago
If you want to have fun, go drive on a racing track. Don’t endanger commuters who have no choice but to drive.
- sipior 15y ago
  Having fun whilst driving is not actually incompatible with road safety, and I'm not entirely sure why you seem to be suggesting that it is. The cause of this horrible accident certainly wasn't an excess of (driving) enjoyment.
  - ugh 15y ago
    Humans suck at driving. As soon as we have the technology we should let machines do it. I’m willing to bet that there will be ample opportunities for those who are willing to take the risk to drive without endangering others.
  - modeless 15y ago
    He's not suggesting that having fun while driving is incompatible with road safety. He's suggesting that a world of mandatory robot drivers on public roads doesn't preclude having fun while driving.

by sipior 15y ago

swombat 15y ago

Deadly car accidents aren't the actions of "a few". Anyone can cause one through inattentive driving, tiredness, mobile phone usage, and of course simple lack of experience. The other tragic thing about car accidents is that your mistakes can kill not only yourself, but also many other people. You might argue (though I'd disagree) that someone who's been driving for 10 hours straight deserves to die in an accident, but you certainly can't argue that the family of 5 that he crashed into head-on deserved it too. To suggest these countless people need to die to satisfy your need for thrills is somewhat like suggesting that vaccines are boring because they take away the excitement of not knowing which of your children will live to an adult age.

speckledjim 15y ago
The car has certainly done far far far more good than bad. That's why we put up with the downside (a few deaths a day). The issue is that there's a small minority of bad drivers who cause accidents. Removing everyones freedom to drive because of those few isn't very fair, and would result in a boring 'locked down' society.
- Goronmon 15y ago
  Removing everyones freedom to drive because of those few isn't very fair, and would result in a boring 'locked down' society. You can't expect a 'freedom' to exist in perpetuity for something that can easily result in the deaths of others by the actions of one person. I'd put it in the same category as things like not allowing people to smoke in workplaces, public buildings, etc, or allowing people to shoot firearms in the backyards of their suburban homes. I just don't see there being a 'freedom to manually control tons of metal for the purposes of transportation' trumping the immense amount of benefits to safety, among others.
  - speckledjim 15y ago
    We have umpteen checks to ensure drivers are as safe as they can be. Deaths in the US from driving have come down from around 120 a day in 2000 to around 90 a day now. In the UK, it's about 8 deaths a day from driving. The road network is now eight times safer per mile travelled than it was in 1966. Just for comparison, around 400+ people die each day in the UK from cancer. Instead of wasting a ton of money making robotic driverless cars because it sounds good, I'd invest that money straight into cancer research.
    - Goronmon 15y ago
      Why waste a ton of money on cancer research that has a good chance of saving no lives, when you can invest money into driverless vehicles that are guaranteed to save lives?
      - speckledjim 15y ago
        Driverless vehicles won't prevent all deaths on the road. Pedestrians and cyclists account for quite a few.
        swombat 15y ago
        Pedestrians and cyclists are killed by... drivers. Ok, maybe some cyclists die of collisions with other cyclists, but I'd wager they're a tiny minority.
        darklajid 15y ago
        Riight.. And your uber-safe automatic car is able to react if I, the stupid pedestrian (or worse, because I'm faster, biker) cross a road without looking. No matter how fast you react, if you go at reasonable speeds and I'm the idiot, you're going to hit me (kill is optional). I think that's what your parent poster was trying to say (because that way it is a sensible argument). Whatever you implement in vehicle safety: If I'm able to throw myself in front of the thing in the last moment, hopefully because I'm a moron and not intentionally, then no technology on earth can avoid the accident. Unless... You want to add mandatory robot bikes and robot shoes...
artmageddon 15y ago
>is somewhat like suggesting that vaccines are boring because they take away the excitement of not knowing which of your children will live to an adult age. I realize you use the word "somewhat", but I still stand by sipior. Autos are, for many, a necessary mode of transportation that have the unfortunate potential to be abused or misused. Knives can be used to prepare food or kill/maim others, as well. I hope no one thinks we should build robots to do all of our cooking for us on the chance we might slice a finger.
- swombat 15y ago
  Slicing a finger and losing an entire family in a horrible car crash are hardly comparable. Your comparison is absurd. If 80 people died every day (source: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx ) in the US from chopping up their vegetables, sometimes entire families slaughtered by a wayward broccoli stem, building robots to do our vegetable-chopping for us should definitely be a high priority. Bear in mind I'm not advocating the removal of cars - merely that great efforts should be made to introduce self-driving cars over the next generation or two.
  - scythe 15y ago
    >Your comparison is absurd. A strange complaint, coming from someone who not twenty minutes ago compared mandatory automated cars to vaccination, the former being a significant infringement on freedom for an undetermined safety gain and the latter being the most successful medical program in the history of humanity. >Bear in mind I'm not advocating the removal of cars - merely that great efforts should be made to introduce self-driving cars over the next generation or two. Okay, and that's fair, but this thread started with someone saying automated cars should be mandatory, so surely you'll understand if we choose to argue against that point? I support computers being used to improve highway safety. I am not yet ready to conclude that the best way to go about this is to mandate self-driving cars for everyone, no exceptions.
    - trobertson 15y ago
      Perhaps the mandate should be for those found guilty of reckless driving, aggressive driving, DUIs, vehicular homicide, etc. You get the privilege of driving until you are seen unfit to drive.

lemmsjid 15y ago

People found ways to not be bored in the millions of years before the invention of the automobile. The thrill of riding a horse. The thrill of running when you're fit. Personally, I find driving to be the definition of boring. The distant, halcyon past is the brief decades (out of the entirety of human history) where we were able to live under the illusion that we could build a road system that would handle the burgeoning amount of traffic without gridlock.

sipior 15y ago
I'll take you at your word regarding your examples of "thrills", although I would note that the horse is probably less impressed :-) I'm not sure about your last point. Enormous strides have been made in designing road networks that are far more tolerant of heavy loads. But gridlock is also in some sense a social problem, and so a purely technological or algorithmic solution is perhaps unrealistic.

orangecat 15y ago

Before nervous, frightened people in denial of their own conspicuous mortality decided to remove yet another source of fun and excitement because of the irresponsible actions of a few. In general, driving is not a source of fun and excitement. In fact, commute times are strongly and negatively associated with self-reported happiness.

sipior 15y ago
People drive for reasons other than commuting, of course. I happen to like driving (especially since I learned to drive a manual). I'm sorry if you don't. Your last point is certainly true. I used to commute to work via a combination of bike and train; getting a car cut my commute in half, and I am decidedly happier for it.

ugh 15y ago

If you want to have fun, go drive on a racing track. Don’t endanger commuters who have no choice but to drive.

sipior 15y ago
Having fun whilst driving is not actually incompatible with road safety, and I'm not entirely sure why you seem to be suggesting that it is. The cause of this horrible accident certainly wasn't an excess of (driving) enjoyment.
- ugh 15y ago
  Humans suck at driving. As soon as we have the technology we should let machines do it. I’m willing to bet that there will be ample opportunities for those who are willing to take the risk to drive without endangering others.
- modeless 15y ago
  He's not suggesting that having fun while driving is incompatible with road safety. He's suggesting that a world of mandatory robot drivers on public roads doesn't preclude having fun while driving.