6 ms·

> think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers. Autopilot has

by kart23 4y ago

> think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers. Autopilot has killed multiple motorcyclists, and is suspected in many other cases, totaling 19 fatalities. This isn't the first, our regulatory bodies are just incredibly slow at this. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/08/tesla-faces-new-probes-into-motorbike-deaths-false-advertising/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/08/tesla-faces-new-probes-... https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/27/23280461/tesla-autopilot-crash-motorcyclist-fatal-utah-nhtsa https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/27/23280461/tesla-autopilot-...

MengerSponge 4y ago
But motorcyclists rank just above bicyclists, and just below deer. Nobody actually gets in trouble for hitting them on the road. I would love to see manslaughter charges for more accidents. If I do a whoopsie and stab someone in my home, I'm not going to get off with a "oh my god I'm so sorry! I was tired and it was foggy." People driving should be extended the same courtesy.
- suslik 4y ago
  Or just solve the problem by banning motorcycles. Motorcycles should stay on race tracks where they belong, not on foggy roads with tired commuters. Same with normal bikes, by the way: cycling on the same road with fast-driving cars should not be an actual phenomenon. I cycle to work every day, and love it, but would never do it if there wasn't a separate bike lane.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    That's just further entrenching car dominance. Every mode of transport should be allowed to safely use the roads, and for what it's worth motorcycles are way better for the climate as a mode of individual transport because they weigh maybe 10% of your average modern car.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      You'd be surprised. They're woefully unaerodynamic, and emissions standards are pretty lax for them. Something like a CBR300F is about half the emissions of a hybrid and a grom can get lower, but plenty of motorbikes are actually worse than a compact car and getting close to SUV territory.
      - mschuster91 4y ago
        > They're woefully unaerodynamic, and emissions standards are pretty lax for them. Still more aerodynamic and fuel efficient than someone riding a full-blown SUV to work solo. > but plenty of motorbikes are actually worse than a compact car and getting close to SUV territory. Not everyone drives a Kawasaki Ninja H2 R with 310 hp or whatever the top record is these days. Per German ADAC, the average motorcycle consumes 2-3 liters/100km [1], whereas the average car is at 7-8 liters/100km [2]. [1] https://www.adac.de/verkehr/tanken-kraftstoff-antrieb/tipps-zum-tanken/spritsparen-motorrad-roller/ https://www.adac.de/verkehr/tanken-kraftstoff-antrieb/tipps-... [2] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/verkehr/kraftstoffe https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/verkehr/kraftstoffe
        MengerSponge 4y ago
        They might be worse for emissions that aren't CO2, but this whole discussion is moot. Ebikes could be the actual future.
        trashtester 4y ago
        When measuring the health hazards of motorbikes/mopeds, emissions are a small part. Part of the reason is that it's so fun to go fast with them.
      - foepys 4y ago
        You can buy electric scooters nowadays that can drive a lot farther than any car with the same battery. If one was big on emission reduction, one would ban all cars and only allow scooters.
  - joshlemer 4y ago
    You’re right, wherever there aren’t protected bike lanes, we should ban cars
    - typon 4y ago
      You are being sarcastic - but this mindset change should happen in American cities if we are to move towards a sustainable future. We should have regular roads for bicyclists and pedestrians and "car lanes" on some roads, "truck lanes" on others etc.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - janalsncm 4y ago
    I don’t bike to work for the reason you mentioned, even in the bike lane. The health benefits aren’t worth the amortized risk. Cars treat bike lanes as passing lanes way too often. If it’s not physically separated it’s not for me.
  - r_hoods_ghost 4y ago
    Or you could prosecute dangerous drivers who hit pedestrians for manslaughter / attempted manslaughter and work on the assumption that the person I charge of the most dangerous vehicle has a duty of care towards other road users and if they don't discharge that duty they shouldn't be allowed to drive.
    - afiori 4y ago
      Prosecuting bad drivers is very important, at the very least in a "Strike One to Educate One Hundred" way. On the other hand the reason for most car accidents is bad road design, especially designs that encourage high speeds.
      - MengerSponge 4y ago
        Yes! It's also a policy failure to allow vehicles with such high hoods. I'd be okay with requiring a CDL/professional insurance as a compromise
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      If harsher punishments don’t deter intentional violent crime, why do people expect them to deter accidents?
      - brookst 4y ago
        Not the person you’re responding to, but typically this mindset is about punishment more than deterrence. It won’t reduce the incidence of bad outcomes, but some people feel better knowing that judicial vengeance will be meted out.
        throwaway894345 4y ago
        Fair enough, but do those people hold the same attitude about punishing violent criminals? Seems like there’s a lot of overlap between the “we shouldn’t punish violent offenders” and the “reckless drivers should be punished” people, but maybe I’m misreading the situation.
  - MengerSponge 4y ago
    If someone's impaired driving in unsafe conditions results in an accident, they absolutely should be held liable. I'm tired of car-brained apologists.
  - akira2501 4y ago
    Banning doesn't solve the problem. It just obscures one of the symptoms. Motorcycles _and_ pedestrians equally take an unfair share of the mortality associated with vehicles. Which hints at a broader infrastructure and design problem, that makes it very much seem like "automated" cars are thrown into this mess without any design changes with the hope that they will also obscure the underlying error. Aside from that, even my 650cc motorcycle got 52mpg most days. Yes, absurd power to weight ratio, but also absurd fuel efficiency and reduced lane occupancy. Very green.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    Or, you know, hold drivers accountable for the carnage they cause. This is much less a problem in Western Europe. It's almost wholly cultural in the US... We build shit transportation infrastructure, force everybody to drive, don't build enough housing (forcing longer commutes), and then people like you complain that cars aren't given enough leeway?
  - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
    Yes, and ban pedestrians. Walking belongs to a shopping mall. We cannot allow those pesky pedestrians endanger our Full Self Driving.
- SyzygistSix 4y ago
  Or at least take their license once they have proven they are a hazard to others.
- maury91 4y ago
  Honestly it feels like a car is the perfect murder weapon, if you want to kill someone you can ran over that person, especially if that person is on a bike, and you will get a reduced sentence compared to if you did that with what is normally considered a weapon ( knife, gun, ... ) I think if you endanger someone’s life with anything, be it a car, motorcycle, knife, gun, hands; you should always get the same sentence
  - paledot 4y ago
    This came up a lot in my criminology program in university. Criminologists (especially students) spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about how to kill people and get away with it. General consensus is with a car. The crazy part is that whether or not you knew the person you ran over in your car can factor heavily into charges and sentencing.
    - echelon 4y ago
      > The crazy part is that whether or not you knew the person you ran over in your car can factor heavily into charges and sentencing. Knowing the person leads one to question whether or not there was motive.
      - paledot 4y ago
        Right, but if I walk out my front door and shoot the first person I see, I'm not going to dodge prison time because I didn't know the person. Someone is still dead.
- pnt12 4y ago
  We cannot omit the context: in most places, people need to drive to work, to get groceries, and everything. A car is tremendously useful but a 5 second distraction can result in a death. You can't expect people who drive every day to be alert every single second, so there's a leeway when accidents happen. That's a tradeoff society made. But I'm all in favor of practicing more careful driving, and banning the shit of these incomplete automated driving mechanism!

by kart23 4y ago

MengerSponge 4y ago

But motorcyclists rank just above bicyclists, and just below deer. Nobody actually gets in trouble for hitting them on the road. I would love to see manslaughter charges for more accidents. If I do a whoopsie and stab someone in my home, I'm not going to get off with a "oh my god I'm so sorry! I was tired and it was foggy." People driving should be extended the same courtesy.

suslik 4y ago
Or just solve the problem by banning motorcycles. Motorcycles should stay on race tracks where they belong, not on foggy roads with tired commuters. Same with normal bikes, by the way: cycling on the same road with fast-driving cars should not be an actual phenomenon. I cycle to work every day, and love it, but would never do it if there wasn't a separate bike lane.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  That's just further entrenching car dominance. Every mode of transport should be allowed to safely use the roads, and for what it's worth motorcycles are way better for the climate as a mode of individual transport because they weigh maybe 10% of your average modern car.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    You'd be surprised. They're woefully unaerodynamic, and emissions standards are pretty lax for them. Something like a CBR300F is about half the emissions of a hybrid and a grom can get lower, but plenty of motorbikes are actually worse than a compact car and getting close to SUV territory.
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      > They're woefully unaerodynamic, and emissions standards are pretty lax for them. Still more aerodynamic and fuel efficient than someone riding a full-blown SUV to work solo. > but plenty of motorbikes are actually worse than a compact car and getting close to SUV territory. Not everyone drives a Kawasaki Ninja H2 R with 310 hp or whatever the top record is these days. Per German ADAC, the average motorcycle consumes 2-3 liters/100km [1], whereas the average car is at 7-8 liters/100km [2]. [1] https://www.adac.de/verkehr/tanken-kraftstoff-antrieb/tipps-zum-tanken/spritsparen-motorrad-roller/ https://www.adac.de/verkehr/tanken-kraftstoff-antrieb/tipps-... [2] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/verkehr/kraftstoffe https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/verkehr/kraftstoffe
      - MengerSponge 4y ago
        They might be worse for emissions that aren't CO2, but this whole discussion is moot. Ebikes could be the actual future.
        trashtester 4y ago
        When measuring the health hazards of motorbikes/mopeds, emissions are a small part. Part of the reason is that it's so fun to go fast with them.
    - foepys 4y ago
      You can buy electric scooters nowadays that can drive a lot farther than any car with the same battery. If one was big on emission reduction, one would ban all cars and only allow scooters.
- joshlemer 4y ago
  You’re right, wherever there aren’t protected bike lanes, we should ban cars
  - typon 4y ago
    You are being sarcastic - but this mindset change should happen in American cities if we are to move towards a sustainable future. We should have regular roads for bicyclists and pedestrians and "car lanes" on some roads, "truck lanes" on others etc.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- janalsncm 4y ago
  I don’t bike to work for the reason you mentioned, even in the bike lane. The health benefits aren’t worth the amortized risk. Cars treat bike lanes as passing lanes way too often. If it’s not physically separated it’s not for me.
- r_hoods_ghost 4y ago
  Or you could prosecute dangerous drivers who hit pedestrians for manslaughter / attempted manslaughter and work on the assumption that the person I charge of the most dangerous vehicle has a duty of care towards other road users and if they don't discharge that duty they shouldn't be allowed to drive.
  - afiori 4y ago
    Prosecuting bad drivers is very important, at the very least in a "Strike One to Educate One Hundred" way. On the other hand the reason for most car accidents is bad road design, especially designs that encourage high speeds.
    - MengerSponge 4y ago
      Yes! It's also a policy failure to allow vehicles with such high hoods. I'd be okay with requiring a CDL/professional insurance as a compromise
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    If harsher punishments don’t deter intentional violent crime, why do people expect them to deter accidents?
    - brookst 4y ago
      Not the person you’re responding to, but typically this mindset is about punishment more than deterrence. It won’t reduce the incidence of bad outcomes, but some people feel better knowing that judicial vengeance will be meted out.
      - throwaway894345 4y ago
        Fair enough, but do those people hold the same attitude about punishing violent criminals? Seems like there’s a lot of overlap between the “we shouldn’t punish violent offenders” and the “reckless drivers should be punished” people, but maybe I’m misreading the situation.
- MengerSponge 4y ago
  If someone's impaired driving in unsafe conditions results in an accident, they absolutely should be held liable. I'm tired of car-brained apologists.
- akira2501 4y ago
  Banning doesn't solve the problem. It just obscures one of the symptoms. Motorcycles _and_ pedestrians equally take an unfair share of the mortality associated with vehicles. Which hints at a broader infrastructure and design problem, that makes it very much seem like "automated" cars are thrown into this mess without any design changes with the hope that they will also obscure the underlying error. Aside from that, even my 650cc motorcycle got 52mpg most days. Yes, absurd power to weight ratio, but also absurd fuel efficiency and reduced lane occupancy. Very green.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Or, you know, hold drivers accountable for the carnage they cause. This is much less a problem in Western Europe. It's almost wholly cultural in the US... We build shit transportation infrastructure, force everybody to drive, don't build enough housing (forcing longer commutes), and then people like you complain that cars aren't given enough leeway?
- rad_gruchalski 4y ago
  Yes, and ban pedestrians. Walking belongs to a shopping mall. We cannot allow those pesky pedestrians endanger our Full Self Driving.
SyzygistSix 4y ago
Or at least take their license once they have proven they are a hazard to others.
maury91 4y ago
Honestly it feels like a car is the perfect murder weapon, if you want to kill someone you can ran over that person, especially if that person is on a bike, and you will get a reduced sentence compared to if you did that with what is normally considered a weapon ( knife, gun, ... ) I think if you endanger someone’s life with anything, be it a car, motorcycle, knife, gun, hands; you should always get the same sentence
- paledot 4y ago
  This came up a lot in my criminology program in university. Criminologists (especially students) spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about how to kill people and get away with it. General consensus is with a car. The crazy part is that whether or not you knew the person you ran over in your car can factor heavily into charges and sentencing.
  - echelon 4y ago
    > The crazy part is that whether or not you knew the person you ran over in your car can factor heavily into charges and sentencing. Knowing the person leads one to question whether or not there was motive.
    - paledot 4y ago
      Right, but if I walk out my front door and shoot the first person I see, I'm not going to dodge prison time because I didn't know the person. Someone is still dead.
pnt12 4y ago
We cannot omit the context: in most places, people need to drive to work, to get groceries, and everything. A car is tremendously useful but a 5 second distraction can result in a death. You can't expect people who drive every day to be alert every single second, so there's a leeway when accidents happen. That's a tradeoff society made. But I'm all in favor of practicing more careful driving, and banning the shit of these incomplete automated driving mechanism!