4 ms·
I just don't understand these types of articles. "Driverless cars don't cure cancer. They're a complete failure." Would you prefer to have autonomous cars, wi
by harmegido 12y ago
I just don't understand these types of articles.
"Driverless cars don't cure cancer. They're a complete failure."
Would you prefer to have autonomous cars, with their reduced incidence of accident/ability to reduce traffic through smarter driving, or not? Who cares if it doesn't solve every one of the world's problems?
And I'm a person who actually hates cars/suburbia/etc.
- jacques_chester 12y ago> "Driverless cars don't cure cancer. They're a complete failure." It's called the Nirvana Fallacy. Very common in our profession and in others where folk like us wind up.
- Doctor_Fegg 12y ago_If_ we could achieve largely car-free cities, and the few journeys for which cars are necessary were carried out by self-driving cars, then I'd agree with you. But I don't see it. The seductive argument is "hey! Google's technology makes cars all right! We don't have to invest in public transport or bike lanes!". It's what's going on right now with electric cars here in the UK: the Government investment lavished on them is disproportionate to the pennies spent on cycle infrastructure.[1] Self-driving cars are a great excuse for politicians not to make their cities as good as Groningen.[2] But maybe you're lucky enough to have better politicians than we do! [1] https://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/cycling-gets-weak-mention-in-dft-s-roads-for-the-21st-century-plan/015120 https://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/cycling-gets-weak-mention-... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen#Transport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen#Transport