Do I approve of driverless cars?

"Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast." (twostrokesmoke) 05/21/2014 at 11:54 • Filed to: None

0

12

Well, no. But this article makes me think it might not be so bad, because I'm not a fan of the Po-po, either. (At least until the ones out here quit being so trigger happy)

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Reigntastic > Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. 05/21/2014 at 11:57

4

Average police officer generates over 300k in citations per year.

That statistic leaves me aghast, for some reason. It's a fucking revenue generator, and little else.

Barbarian772 > Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. 05/21/2014 at 11:58

1

I still don't udnerstand why anyone would by a driverless car, I mean pay for using them, ok, but if I don't drive it it's nothing more than a taxi.

The good thing would be that if every single car is driverless and linked speed limits could go up very far and safety could still be pretty much guaranteed.

If driverless cars become reality I would probably just use my car budget for a racecar and a year-pass for some trackday events...

Jonathon Klein > Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. 05/21/2014 at 11:59

0

Check this out

http://www.thesmokingtire.com/2014/why-i-wel…

Rainbow > Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. 05/21/2014 at 12:01

0

Driverless cars are so much better than a large handful of human-operated ones, at least. Imagine if all cars were a combination of both and were started with a built-in Breathalyzer; if you have any alcohol in you, it locks into the self-driving mode no matter what. Otherwise, you're free to choose. Likewise, it requires your cell phone to be docked in the passenger side door panel. If it's removed, the car will take over immediately. However there's still enough leeway that if you DO have a passenger, he or she can use your phone for you and you can still control the car. You know, just to be fair. And on the subject of passengers, there is a weight sensor in every seat and every occupant is required to take the Breathalyzer. That way no assholes will get a sober friend to start the car for them. At some point, the driver needs to do it.

Rainbow > Reigntastic 05/21/2014 at 12:05

1

Yep... Regardless how you feel about capitalism, other systems tend to have much better cops than the US, simply because it's actually about preventing and stopping crime over there, rather than making a profit. If there's one thing that absolutely needs to be as non-profit as possible, it's the police force.

Reigntastic > Rainbow 05/21/2014 at 12:08

0

Yep, you hit the nail on the head. Traffic law enforcement should not be about making the government a quick buck, not even in the slightest.

Reigntastic > Rainbow 05/21/2014 at 12:10

0

Personally I would either want a fully auto car, or a fully manual vehicle that I drive myself. Having both just adds a ton of weight and numbness to the experience, I wouldn't be buying an automated car so I could chauffeur myself, I would get it to sleep in the rear seat.

Manual mode override would definitely be a necessity for taking them off the beaten path, though.

Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. > Reigntastic 05/21/2014 at 12:23

0

IMO it seems that is what our government has become all about, not just the cops.

Reigntastic > Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. 05/21/2014 at 12:27

0

No, the government is all about spending as much money as it possibly can, that's why we have bloodsuckers pulling us over for dangerously driving 8% faster than the rest of traffic.

BigBlock440 > Rainbow 05/21/2014 at 12:30

0

How is a police force related in any way to economic theory?

Rainbow > BigBlock440 05/21/2014 at 12:36

0

Indirectly.

f86sabre > Rainbow 05/21/2014 at 20:05

0

it would be a total game changer for the elderly, handicapped and people who are impaired.