ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags cars

View Poll Results: Driverless cars will become mandatory by 2050
Yes they will 30 22.73%
No they won't 63 47.73%
It will take longer 22 16.67%
Your poll options suck 35 26.52%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 132. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 3rd March 2017, 07:32 AM   #201
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,146
Huge room for improvement with almost 100 people per day killed in or by motor vehicles. A couple years ago I took the six-hour defensive driving course in New York (to get an insurance discount) and most of the course was devoted to strategies to deal with or counter overly aggressive drivers.
Quote:
Traffic fatalities in America hit a seven-year high in 2015, with...35,200 people killed in traffic — a 7.7 percent increase over 2014 and the worst death toll since 2008. The number of people killed while walking or biking is rising even faster. Pedestrian deaths shot up 10 percent last year and bicyclist deaths 13 percent — more than other types of victims, according to NHTSA. The agency did not break down these categories by number.

Driving increased in 2015 too, but by 3.5 percent — not enough to explain the rising death toll. Link
newyorkguy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 08:46 AM   #202
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Huge room for improvement with almost 100 people per day killed in or by motor vehicles.
As a matter of interest, assume the technology is already there and that automated cars are made mandatory tomorrow: What death toll figure (per day) would you hail as being a resounding success? For example, if the death toll reduced from 100 a day to 80, would that be a success? Or 50? Or would it need to be much lower, for example 10?
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 10:04 AM   #203
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by baron View Post
That's true. I made broadly the same point in the other gargantuan thread on the topic, saying that the first significant crash or series of crashes caused by automated cars could well scupper the entire industry (such as it is), given that people's uptake of the technology will be based on their perception of its risk rather than the actuality. So, even if the impossible happens and a driverless car is developed that is better than 99% of the population, the first time such a car mows down a bus queue of people or the first time a thousand cars drive into ditches simultaneously as a result of their CPUs being hacked, uptake of the technology will plummet to near zero overnight, even though the stats may still show the cars to be safer than almost all drivers.
I remember that discussion.
I wondered why you think that a horrifying accident involving a mode of transport (like a carbot) would cripple the industry, when there are numerous examples of airplane (and train) mishaps which are just as horrible- yet did not ruin either industry.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 10:10 AM   #204
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
I remember that discussion.
I wondered why you think that a horrifying accident involving a mode of transport (like a carbot) would cripple the industry, when there are numerous examples of airplane (and train) mishaps which are just as horrible- yet did not ruin either industry.
Then you must remember that I answered that question. It is to do with the perception of control vs risk. The illusion of human control, direct or by proxy, mitigates massively against risk.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 10:22 AM   #205
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,949
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I think your confusion arises because I don't believe in surrendering my judgement to a broadly arbitrary figure on a stick. You may call that bad driving, that's your prerogative, but it seems pretty clear to me that high speed in and of itself does not constitute bad driving.
I agree that speed alone is not dangerous. But exceptionally high speeds on public roads can be. Unexpectedly high speeds could be a danger not due to anything you may do, but how others around you may act. In a 70 mph zone people can expect some vehicles in the 80-90 range willing to push it a bit and risk the ticket. Someone traveling at 135 would be unexpected and that alone can result in lots of issues.

We have a road where the speed limit is 85 and it is common to see people traveling close to 100. Even there 135 would be unexpected.

Now I expect to hear about how you had visibility for miles and there was not one living soul around. But you did miss the copper laying in wait.

Finally, I'd hazard to guess that any road with a round about was not really built for 100 plus speeds. Sight lines that seem good at 60-70 mph aren't really sufficient over 100, even if they look quite generous.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 10:29 AM   #206
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,146
By what percentage would driverless cars reduce accidents, fatalities, injuries? Most of the studies I've seen, and I've looked at quite a few, put the driver error figure at around 90%.
Quote:
A UK study published in 1980 likewise identifies driver error, pedestrian error, or impairment as the "main contributory factor" in 95% of the crashes examined. Another US study published in 2001 found that “a driver behavioral error caused or contributed to” 99% of the crashes investigated. Link to Stanford University webpage
Would self-driving cars eliminate what we now call "driver error" and reduce accidents by 90%? That seems kind of utopian but honestly, I think they would reduce accidents, fatalities, injuries by an astonishing degree. My suspicion is, the reduction would be more than 90%. That means just in the U.S., saving the lives of over 30,000 people a year.

I have friends who work in the rail industry and they laugh (and also get angry) about the carnage on the streets and highways. They always says if the railroads ever even came close to the same fatality rates as private cars they'd be shut down. Statistics bear them out. These are from 2000-2009:
  • Commercial aviation was the safest mode of travel in the United States, with 0.07 fatalities per billion passenger miles
  • The fatality rate per billion passenger-miles for buses is relatively low, 0.11.
  • The overall fatality rate for long-haul train service is 0.43 per billion passenger miles [including people killed while working/trespassing on the tracks or driving across them]. Excluding pedestrians and others not on trains — 64% of total fatalities assigned to railroads — the fatality rate is approximately 0.15 per billion passenger miles.
  • Drivers or passengers in cars or light trucks faced a fatality risk of 7.3 per billion passenger-miles. Link
newyorkguy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 10:45 AM   #207
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I agree that speed alone is not dangerous. But exceptionally high speeds on public roads can be.
Absolutely they can be.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Unexpectedly high speeds could be a danger not due to anything you may do, but how others around you may act. In a 70 mph zone people can expect some vehicles in the 80-90 range willing to push it a bit and risk the ticket. Someone traveling at 135 would be unexpected and that alone can result in lots of issues.
Again, true. A good driver doing 135 would therefore know the road, be able to see a good distance ahead, be certain that nobody is coincident to his path, etc. In other words, doing 135mph on a long straight in dry conditions with no other traffic in a well-maintained car travelling well within its potential could be quite safe.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
We have a road where the speed limit is 85 and it is common to see people traveling close to 100. Even there 135 would be unexpected.

Now I expect to hear about how you had visibility for miles and there was not one living soul around. But you did miss the copper laying in wait.
No, I didn't miss him, as I briefly mentioned in my account. The fuller version is that the cops were in an unmarked car. They had followed for seven or so miles trying to get a speed reading and I had seen them multiple times in my mirror, not realising it was a cop car, thinking it was just someone trying to keep up. I pulled away from them and when I was nearly at the end of the straight I saw their blues (which he had just put on) from half a mile away, so I slowed down and pulled into the next layby where I waited for them to arrive. Now there are many people who don't see police blues when they're doing 30 and the cop car is ten feet away, let alone doing 135 with the cop car half a mile distant.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Finally, I'd hazard to guess that any road with a round about was not really built for 100 plus speeds. Sight lines that seem good at 60-70 mph aren't really sufficient over 100, even if they look quite generous.
Some roads are suitable for faster speeds than others. Many NSL roads are not suitable for 50% of the default maximum. Others are suitable for double or more in the right conditions and with the right vehicle.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 03:59 PM   #208
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
I expected a poorer showing for the yes of course they *********** will for the sake of a flying *********** ****. Heartening. The plebes are usually a little more servile to the status quo, nice.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2017, 07:39 PM   #209
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,358
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I have friends who work in the rail industry and they laugh (and also get angry) about the carnage on the streets and highways.
It's interesting how laws against illegal immigrants MUST be enforced, but we can look the other way when there are literally millions of traffic violations a day. The state could enforce the rules of the road without great difficulty, but people turn into babies about it -- unless it's a Mexican with a DUI. I'll never forget one guy arguing against speed cameras saying, "You've gotta personally catch me." Nobody wants strictly enforced laws. That kinda thing would turn us into robots.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 06:11 AM   #210
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
It's interesting how laws against illegal immigrants MUST be enforced, but we can look the other way when there are literally millions of traffic violations a day. The state could enforce the rules of the road without great difficulty...
So would you say the best solution to road deaths is to enforce the rules of the road, which could be done now without great difficulty, or impose a drastic loss of personal freedoms and spend trillions on new technology?
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 10:25 AM   #211
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,841
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
By what percentage would driverless cars reduce accidents, fatalities, injuries? Most of the studies I've seen, and I've looked at quite a few, put the driver error figure at around 90%.


Would self-driving cars eliminate what we now call "driver error" and reduce accidents by 90%?
One of the difficulties of addressing that question is to determine exactly what we mean by "self driving cars". We have self driving cars today. If we made them legal would accidents go down? No. They would skyrocket. But ten years from now, they will be better. At some point, self drivers become as safe as the average human driven car. Then, they become as safe as the very good drivers. Then, later, they become much safer than any human could possibly be. Exactly when do regulators decide that the time has come to allow them for sale in normal situations? Or maybe in specialized situations like delivery trucks? It's very difficult to say, because we don't know how fast improvements will be made. Based on my reading, it seems like progress is very fast. I think that within ten years, self driving cars will be as good as an alert, awake, "good" driver, and will not grow fatigued, distracted, or drunk. That's the point they will become legal.

I don't think they will ever become mandatory.

And "ever" is a long time, but I'll stick by that for the following reason. The ability to create a self driving car implies the ability to do a heck of a lot of things with robots. There will be lots and lots of robots, and the existence of those robots will change society drastically, as much as the existence of the internet changed society. I don't know what the world of the future that includes all sorts of robots looks like, and I don't know what role personal wheeled vehicle transportation plays in that future. Therefore, I will stick with "ever" because by the time the world would be ready for mandatory self driving vehicles, it will have changed so much that the whole role of vehicles will be different than it is today.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 10:42 AM   #212
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,209
Transporters will make this all moot
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 01:12 PM   #213
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,949
Originally Posted by baron View Post
So would you say the best solution to road deaths is to enforce the rules of the road, which could be done now without great difficulty, or impose a drastic loss of personal freedoms and spend trillions on new technology?
Why not both?
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 03:16 PM   #214
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 6,969
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Why not both?
Because the "drastic loss of personal freedoms" one is fictional.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 06:03 PM   #215
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,358
Originally Posted by baron View Post
So would you say the best solution to road deaths is to enforce the rules of the road, which could be done now without great difficulty, or impose a drastic loss of personal freedoms and spend trillions on new technology?
In addition to the good doctor's answer -- why not both? -- regulating human behavior still wouldn't be as effective as driverless cars. Rather than utilizing machines to make sure humans obey the rules, just have the robots take over the menial, soul-sucking task of driving.

I also dispute the "drastic loss of personal freedoms." Driverless cars are freedom maximizing. They would provide liberty to the young and dignity to the old. I do not how you come up with "trillions," but even if true, it ignores the benefits side.

As far as I am concerned, the single strongest argument against driverless cars it that by decreasing the cost of driving (which is not just dollars, but the soul-sucking mentioned earlier), consumption would go up. If we put more vehicles on roads, then it could increase congestion (even assuming zero accidents, perfect driving). Yes, this could produce a countervailing force -- i.e., makes traveling more painful, thus decreasing consumption -- but humans would much prefer to sit in traffic on their smart phone than deal with traffic behind the wheel (while also on their smart phone).

In other words, driverless cars would be too good. Fortunately, I think this is unlikely to occur, not least of all because congestion-pricing would be such an easy solution. Last week, I took my parents to LAX. Getting home took me two and a half hours, and it wasn't even forty miles.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 06:50 PM   #216
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,358
One of the best headlines I've read in awhile: http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/6/148...ity?yptr=yahoo
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 11:01 PM   #217
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 28,928
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
In addition to the good doctor's answer -- why not both? -- regulating human behavior still wouldn't be as effective as driverless cars. Rather than utilizing machines to make sure humans obey the rules, just have the robots take over the menial, soul-sucking task of driving.

I also dispute the "drastic loss of personal freedoms." Driverless cars are freedom maximizing. They would provide liberty to the young and dignity to the old. I do not how you come up with "trillions," but even if true, it ignores the benefits side.

As far as I am concerned, the single strongest argument against driverless cars it that by decreasing the cost of driving (which is not just dollars, but the soul-sucking mentioned earlier), consumption would go up. If we put more vehicles on roads, then it could increase congestion (even assuming zero accidents, perfect driving). Yes, this could produce a countervailing force -- i.e., makes traveling more painful, thus decreasing consumption -- but humans would much prefer to sit in traffic on their smart phone than deal with traffic behind the wheel (while also on their smart phone).

In other words, driverless cars would be too good. Fortunately, I think this is unlikely to occur, not least of all because congestion-pricing would be such an easy solution. Last week, I took my parents to LAX. Getting home took me two and a half hours, and it wasn't even forty miles.
As long as driverless cars:

1. Are not subject to a government kill switch (a mass one, not an individual anti-theft one). This is especially important in emergencies where uppity officials might be tempted to actually use it.

2. Can be pseudo-driven offroad. There are tons of private roads not even considering true offroad, that will never be in a map. Drivers need to be able to instruct the vehicle to go this or that way.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 12:59 AM   #218
Drs_Res
NWO Acorn Hoarder
 
Drs_Res's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: N 34 3 8 / W 118 14 33
Posts: 2,100
My problem with the current state of self driving cars is that I do not trust the manufacturers to be honest with the public or the government.

While Google has reported all of the accidents that it has had (as far as I know) they have not reported all of the thousands of hand-offs to the back-up driver, they have fought against doing this claiming that it is not needed and will hinder the technology.

What happens when a forced update borks some or all of the cars on the road? Computers are not perfect as you all know. Car companies are not always forthcoming with problems concerning their vehicles, air bags that kill, software that cheats air quality tests, ect..

Look at the issues with identity theft increases since computers and online banking have become normal, major increases.

The more information technology takes over, the easier it seems to be to **** people over.
__________________
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.
Drs_Res is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 12:54 PM   #219
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
In addition to the good doctor's answer -- why not both? -- regulating human behavior still wouldn't be as effective as driverless cars. Rather than utilizing machines to make sure humans obey the rules, just have the robots take over the menial, soul-sucking task of driving.

I also dispute the "drastic loss of personal freedoms." Driverless cars are freedom maximizing. They would provide liberty to the young and dignity to the old. I do not how you come up with "trillions," but even if true, it ignores the benefits side.
The freedom to drive, not the freedom to travel. Driving, and cars in general, are a hobby for countless millions modifying, customising, pimping, just driving, call it what you will. This industry is worth $330 billion (predicted $770 billion worldwide by 2020) and employs 4.2 million people in the US alone (and imagine what removing that customer base would do to that jobs market, and that's before you consider the millions of jobs what would be lost elsewhere). Then you have the poor buggers on their motorbikes, which would obviously be banned outright apart from use on private tracks (and indeed, if the object is to save lives, they would not be permitted on private land either).

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
As far as I am concerned, the single strongest argument against driverless cars it that by decreasing the cost of driving (which is not just dollars, but the soul-sucking mentioned earlier), consumption would go up. If we put more vehicles on roads, then it could increase congestion (even assuming zero accidents, perfect driving). Yes, this could produce a countervailing force -- i.e., makes traveling more painful, thus decreasing consumption -- but humans would much prefer to sit in traffic on their smart phone than deal with traffic behind the wheel (while also on their smart phone).
I've never met anybody who would prefer sitting in traffic to doing anything, aside from maybe dying. Anyway, there's no evidence it would decrease the cost of driving. If anything the cost would increase. More expensive cars, more expensive maintenance, an ongoing cost of software upgrades, etc.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
In other words, driverless cars would be too good. Fortunately, I think this is unlikely to occur, not least of all because congestion-pricing would be such an easy solution. Last week, I took my parents to LAX. Getting home took me two and a half hours, and it wasn't even forty miles.
It's all about where you are. I've never queued for more than five minutes in the past ten years. Of course I'd rather sit in an automated car in a queue than a manual one but for a great many people that's not the choice they need to make.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2017, 11:03 PM   #220
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,358
Originally Posted by baron View Post
The freedom to drive, not the freedom to travel. Driving, and cars in general, are a hobby for countless millions modifying, customising, pimping, just driving, call it what you will. This industry is worth $330 billion (predicted $770 billion worldwide by 2020) and employs 4.2 million people in the US alone (and imagine what removing that customer base would do to that jobs market, and that's before you consider the millions of jobs what would be lost elsewhere). Then you have the poor buggers on their motorbikes, which would obviously be banned outright apart from use on private tracks (and indeed, if the object is to save lives, they would not be permitted on private land either).
It's strange you would offer an economic argument. Cars are notorious for being a depreciating asset; the "pimp-yo-ride" industry is a waste. Young and middle-aged men could/would/should have to find other ways to signal social status. One of the likely benefits of driverless cars would be a return to more utilitarian vehicle designs (of course, it's always difficult to make predictions far into the future; maybe some buses would be outfitted with gym equipment or showers for people who want to be weirdly productive during their commute).

Quote:
I've never met anybody who would prefer sitting in traffic to doing anything, aside from maybe dying. Anyway, there's no evidence it would decrease the cost of driving. If anything the cost would increase. More expensive cars, more expensive maintenance, an ongoing cost of software upgrades, etc.
It looks like personal ownership of automobiles would decline, which means vehicles would be professionally maintained, so cars would run better and become less of a cost-sink (also there'd be less resource waste due to people such as myself being too lazy to regularly increase tire pressure). If accidents are reduced (as expected) then -- again -- the comparison isn't even close as umpteen cars get junked every day because of driver error.

Quote:
It's all about where you are. I've never queued for more than five minutes in the past ten years. Of course I'd rather sit in an automated car in a queue than a manual one but for a great many people that's not the choice they need to make.
Maybe the process will be gradual where robots are required on highways and within city limits, and people can take over on less traveled roads. Still, it's not difficult to see the end-game. Today California got the ball rolling to allow testing truly driverless cars on roads.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2017, 06:42 AM   #221
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
It's strange you would offer an economic argument. Cars are notorious for being a depreciating asset; the "pimp-yo-ride" industry is a waste. Young and middle-aged men could/would/should have to find other ways to signal social status. One of the likely benefits of driverless cars would be a return to more utilitarian vehicle designs (of course, it's always difficult to make predictions far into the future; maybe some buses would be outfitted with gym equipment or showers for people who want to be weirdly productive during their commute).



It looks like personal ownership of automobiles would decline, which means vehicles would be professionally maintained, so cars would run better and become less of a cost-sink (also there'd be less resource waste due to people such as myself being too lazy to regularly increase tire pressure). If accidents are reduced (as expected) then -- again -- the comparison isn't even close as umpteen cars get junked every day because of driver error.



Maybe the process will be gradual where robots are required on highways and within city limits, and people can take over on less traveled roads. Still, it's not difficult to see the end-game. Today California got the ball rolling to allow testing truly driverless cars on roads.
WRT showers in the vehicles. My SO and I often see elderly men and women spending their retirement traveling around the country in RV's.
That kind of thing has some appeal to us- but we realize that it is no kind of fun for the person who actually has to do the driving.

An RV that drives itself, however? We would likely wish to try it out.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2017, 07:14 PM   #222
TomB
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 342
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
It's strange you would offer an economic argument. Cars are notorious for being a depreciating asset; the "pimp-yo-ride" industry is a waste. Young and middle-aged men could/would/should have to find other ways to signal social status. One of the likely benefits of driverless cars would be a return to more utilitarian vehicle designs (of course, it's always difficult to make predictions far into the future; maybe some buses would be outfitted with gym equipment or showers for people who want to be weirdly productive during their commute).
This reads to me like: "It's not my hobby, therefore it is stupid."

I'm not a "pimp my ride" type, but I know people who are. My brother-in-law has a '79 Camaro he rebuilt from the ground up with modifications for drag racing (roll cage, wide rear wheels, narrow front wheels, etc.) It's street legal, but he built it for the track and mostly trailers it around to the track and to shows. The guy a couple houses down has an old roadster he built that he likes to drive on sunny days.

They don't get "social status" from their hobby. They get enjoyment. Just like people who enjoy biking, hiking, painting, stamp collecting or reading as hobbies. Look at it this way, for people who enjoy driving, taking the sunday drive in a driverless car is like hiking on a conveyer belt. (Imagine all the sprained ankles that could be avoided if we just installed conveyer belts on all the trails.)
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2017, 08:41 PM   #223
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,358
A driverless RV would be pretty great, but I'm not sure it would make sense for most to buy one. My parents had one that we would take up to Canada and down to Mexico every summer. For the rest of the year, it just sat in our parking lot. Itinerant retired life would be an exception.

Originally Posted by TomB View Post
This reads to me like: "It's not my hobby, therefore it is stupid."
I have pastimes that are stupid. Generally speaking, sports are stupid, but I read about the games, watch the highlights, and discuss them aloud in public.

Quote:
I'm not a "pimp my ride" type, but I know people who are. My brother-in-law has a '79 Camaro he rebuilt from the ground up with modifications for drag racing (roll cage, wide rear wheels, narrow front wheels, etc.) It's street legal, but he built it for the track and mostly trailers it around to the track and to shows. The guy a couple houses down has an old roadster he built that he likes to drive on sunny days.

They don't get "social status" from their hobby. They get enjoyment. Just like people who enjoy biking, hiking, painting, stamp collecting or reading as hobbies. Look at it this way, for people who enjoy driving, taking the sunday drive in a driverless car is like hiking on a conveyer belt. (Imagine all the sprained ankles that could be avoided if we just installed conveyer belts on all the trails.)
The difference between driving and hiking should be pretty obvious: the former imposes many more costs onto society. If hiking through a particular area proved dangerous, maybe people were consistently injured, then it might be reasonable to close off that particular area. A better comparison would be firearms, which millions of Americans enjoy as a recreational activity. Guns are cool, and they make boom-boom noises. Same goes for fireworks. But of course, certain restrictions (and even bans) are perfectly reasonable in a well-ordered society (and potentially liberty-maximizing).

Eventually, all of this boils down to the fact that people suck. We should all be allowed to have guns and roll through stop signs when nobody is around, but we can't because we're dumb and people will get hurt. If everyone did everything responsibly, we could save tons of money; resources would go to schools rather than police departments. Unfortunately, we live in the real world.

Your brother-in-law will not be adversely affected by a driverless car revolution. If anything, we might expect more private tracks to pop up and people to take that hobby. As for the weekend driver, we're long past the days when people could ride their horse into town. That's long been disallowed; it's called progress.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2017, 06:15 AM   #224
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
If hiking through a particular area proved dangerous, maybe people were consistently injured, then it might be reasonable to close off that particular area.
I was going to reply to your reply to me, but I think this illustrates better why we will never agree on the matter. The idea that people need protecting from themselves and any risk deemed unacceptable by a certain group (normally of non-partakers) should be eradicated strikes me as somewhere between absurd and horrific.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2017, 01:24 PM   #225
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 6,969
Car safety isn't just about protecting people from themselves. It's about protecting people from other people.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2017, 01:54 PM   #226
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Car safety isn't just about protecting people from themselves. It's about protecting people from other people.
Not in the specific argument I was addressing. Also, most people choose to be on the road in a private vehicle. They take that risk. They could travel by public transport, or choose to make only essential journeys, but they don't. By all means make the roads safer but not at the clear expense of others' freedoms, just because one group of people deems them unnecessary.

This applies even more to the UK than the US. In the UK an average of four people a day die in road traffic accidents (one of these is a motorcyclist). To put that in perspective, that's about 1% of the deaths resulting from bad lifestyle choices such as fatty foods, smoking, alcohol and lack of exercise. As I listed elsewhere, there are a variety of safety measures that could be implemented right now to drastically reduce that figure, so what you're left with is the proposition to remove the freedoms and pass times of millions of people at a cost of countless billions in order to make save a few dozen lives a year (that's assuming the technology will ever be capable enough within the lifetime of road vehicles, which it won't be). Just one reason why it will never happen.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2017, 03:36 PM   #227
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,358
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I was going to reply to your reply to me, but I think this illustrates better why we will never agree on the matter. The idea that people need protecting from themselves and any risk deemed unacceptable by a certain group (normally of non-partakers) should be eradicated strikes me as somewhere between absurd and horrific.
Careful, you're going to sprain an ankle leaping to conclusions.

In the real world, when people are consistently injured, they sue about lack of warnings and ask why certain behavior is allowed if the relevant authority knew people kept getting hurt. I did not suggest that a ban was the first or even the best solution, but it's an option. I generally prefer norms and soft-paternalism to hard rules.

If anyone were allowed to make bombs, then it might be a more popular hobby, and regulations would face greater opposition. The law, along with the evolution of society, alters people's preferences, so restrictions once thought onerous in yesteryear will seem entirely reasonable to the living. Newer generations internalize different values and norms, so cries about the horse & buggy cars will seem entirely anachronistic.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2017, 05:05 PM   #228
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Careful, you're going to sprain an ankle leaping to conclusions.

In the real world, when people are consistently injured, they sue about lack of warnings and ask why certain behavior is allowed if the relevant authority knew people kept getting hurt. I did not suggest that a ban was the first or even the best solution, but it's an option. I generally prefer norms and soft-paternalism to hard rules.
But you did mention hiking as an example which, for my argument, is a good example of the kind of situation where personal responsibility needs to come into play. If someone goes hiking and gets injured or dies then it is always their own responsibility (or that of their parents or guardians). Of course the risks for driving are more complex but the onus still needs to be put more on the person taking the risk rather than some nebulous third party ('they'). Providing more options is fine, banning existing options is rarely the solution, or indeed acceptable in most cases.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
If anyone were allowed to make bombs, then it might be a more popular hobby, and regulations would face greater opposition.
It's quite right that activities involving artefacts originally designed to kill other people should be regulated. It's actually quite ironic that there's a drive (no pun intended) to regulate car technology in the states when practically anyone can avail themselves of heavy weaponry which is used to kill 33,000 people and injure 73,000 more every year.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
The law, along with the evolution of society, alters people's preferences, so restrictions once thought onerous in yesteryear will seem entirely reasonable to the living. Newer generations internalize different values and norms, so cries about the horse & buggy cars will seem entirely anachronistic.
The difference being that the horse and buggy has not been banned. Certainly in the UK anybody can ride a horse practically anywhere, aside from multiple carriageway roads, and the same for a horse and carriage, horse-drawn caravan, Model T Ford, steam roller or unicycle. And I recall that the same is broadly true in the US, in that no historic road vehicle has received a blanket ban aside from a very few special cases in certain states (I showed this in another thread and despite protestations that this was not so, nobody came up with any evidence).
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2017, 05:41 PM   #229
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 6,969
Originally Posted by baron View Post
most people choose to be on the road in a private vehicle. They take that risk. They could travel by public transport...
You know perfectly well that that isn't true.

Aren't you the same person who had the "135 MPH" bragging session a while ago, thus throwing away any & all shadow of credibility on this subject anyway? Switching from being cavalier about people's lives & well-being but at least presumably honest about it to unmistakably flagrantly lying has not been an improvement.

Originally Posted by baron View Post
...or choose to make only essential journeys...
Well, at least now admitting that it's "essential" is a tiny step...

Originally Posted by baron View Post
By all means make the roads safer but not at the clear expense of others' freedoms... the proposition to remove the freedoms and pass times of millions of people...
You have yet to make even the slightest attempt to justify this "freedoms" nonsense, other than the "freedom" to gamble with other people's lives, which doesn't exist...

Originally Posted by baron View Post
at a cost of countless billions
...or that one, either.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2017, 07:06 PM   #230
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,456
Maybe in some countries it's so, but here in the US, especially in the rural US, part of the choice of cars over public transport is simply because there is no public transport. I am not eager for robocars to take over, but Baron's blithe dismissal of the issue as a choice we make is simply not true.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2017, 06:05 AM   #231
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
You know perfectly well that that isn't true.
Thanks for telling me what I know. Your erudite logic has really changed my mind on the subject.

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Aren't you the same person who had the "135 MPH" bragging session a while ago, thus throwing away any & all shadow of credibility on this subject anyway?
No, I'm the same person as had an unrelated years-old post taken from another thread in an attempt to discredit me in this one. The fact is I have driven approximately one million miles with zero at-fault crashes, zero deaths, zero injuries, zero court summonses and one single £30 speeding ticket 20 years ago. How does that compare with your driving record, BTW? For people like yourself to try and make out that I'm a dangerous driver, and the fact I once travelled faster than your skills allow make me a danger to good upstanding citizens and innocent children the world over, good luck with that. This site values evidence, I may remind you, not hysterical self-righteousness.

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Switching from being cavalier about people's lives & well-being but at least presumably honest about it to unmistakably flagrantly lying has not been an improvement.
Post where I have flagrantly lied, because it seems any lying is on your side.

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Well, at least now admitting that it's "essential" is a tiny step...
I didn't admit anything, your English comprehension needs work.

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
You have yet to make even the slightest attempt to justify this "freedoms" nonsense, other than the "freedom" to gamble with other people's lives, which doesn't exist...

...or that one, either.
If removal of freedoms doesn't affect you then it's OK. I get it, no need to bang on about it. Those people have their hobbies and livelihoods ruined, that's OK because yours are unaffected. Bravo.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2017, 06:08 AM   #232
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Maybe in some countries it's so, but here in the US, especially in the rural US, part of the choice of cars over public transport is simply because there is no public transport. I am not eager for robocars to take over, but Baron's blithe dismissal of the issue as a choice we make is simply not true.
Good job I never made that claim. I said 'most' people. More accurately, most journeys. Take away non-essential journeys, then take away journeys that could be made on foot or by public transport and I'd say what remains is a minority of journeys. Obviously it doesn't apply to everyone, especially in rural locations, but certainly in the US, where lazy bums get in their car to visit their neighbour two doors down, I think it pretty much holds true.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 08:37 AM   #233
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,949
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Good job I never made that claim. I said 'most' people. More accurately, most journeys. Take away non-essential journeys, then take away journeys that could be made on foot or by public transport and I'd say what remains is a minority of journeys.
Check your privilege. Most of the US has rubbish public transit and outside of a few large metro areas most American would have a very hard time relying primarily on public transit.

Quote:
Obviously it doesn't apply to everyone, especially in rural locations, but certainly in the US, where lazy bums get in their car to visit their neighbour two doors down, I think it pretty much holds true.
Just because Steve Martin does it in a movie making fun of LA doesn't mean it is common occurrence.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 10:03 AM   #234
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Check your privilege. Most of the US has rubbish public transit and outside of a few large metro areas most American would have a very hard time relying primarily on public transit.
Maybe if there was more of a demand for it, services would be better. I'm sure if everyone decided to leave their cars at home tomorrow it would be a problem, but if people over the generations had chosen to use public transport and not chosen to use their own public vehicles it would be a very different story. Hence, choice; people choose to use their cars when other choices were and are available.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Just because Steve Martin does it in a movie making fun of LA doesn't mean it is common occurrence.

Oh yeah?


Quote:
Periodically, National Geographic publishes a 17-nation “Greendex” study on, among many other things, transit use and walking. In 2012 we Americans came in dead last on both indices, and it wasn’t close.
Quote:
We are also dead last in bicycling.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 12:31 PM   #235
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,949
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Maybe if there was more of a demand for it, services would be better. I'm sure if everyone decided to leave their cars at home tomorrow it would be a problem, but if people over the generations had chosen to use public transport and not chosen to use their own public vehicles it would be a very different story. Hence, choice; people choose to use their cars when other choices were and are available.
I agree that it is our poor choices that have gotten us here, and yet here we are. Which means your assertion is still false.



Quote:
Is there something in that article that supports your assertion that Americans commonly drive to the house two doors down? I know we suck at walking, but we don't suck that bad.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 12:37 PM   #236
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I agree that it is our poor choices that have gotten us here, and yet here we are. Which means your assertion is still false.
Not at all. Millions more journeys could be made by public transport, or foot, or not made at all, starting right now. Even without a sudden change of habits, people could still make different choices and choose to make a few more public transport journeys a month, and thus the reliance on private cars I mentioned would decrease over time. Not that I'm saying people should, but it is their choice.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Is there something in that article that supports your assertion that Americans commonly drive to the house two doors down? I know we suck at walking, but we don't suck that bad.
Not in that article. I got that (partly) from talking to a family friend who had lived in the US (somewhere on the East coast IIRC) for about 20 years. She said nobody walked anywhere aside from in the cities. She had been stopped more than once whilst on foot by the police, who had asked her if she was OK and expressed puzzlement on being told she was just out walking.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 12:39 PM   #237
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 6,969
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Which means your assertion is still false.
And irrelevant anyway. Even if the premise about the rest of us having any choice about driving weren't a lie, and even if the additional required premise that other methods of transportation don't use the same roads as private transportation anyway (admittedly not said explicitly yet but the argument really can't work without it) weren't also just as false, the position of "If other people don't like the risks that people like me want to take with their lives because it's just such a fun hobby, it's up to them to stay inside where they're out of our way" would still not a good position.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 12:44 PM   #238
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,949
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Not at all. Millions more journeys could be made by public transport, or foot, or not made at all, starting right now. Even without a sudden change of habits, people could still make different choices and choose to make a few more public transport journeys a month, and thus the reliance on private cars I mentioned would decrease over time. Not that I'm saying people should, but it is their choice.
Oh, I agree that millions of journeys could be reduced. But in a country of 300 million people and around a billion daily journeys, even 10 million journeys isn't going to mean much for some time. And doesn't come anywhere close to your claimed "most journeys" as below:

Originally Posted by baron View Post
Good job I never made that claim. I said 'most' people. More accurately, most journeys. Take away non-essential journeys, then take away journeys that could be made on foot or by public transport and I'd say what remains is a minority of journeys. Obviously it doesn't apply to everyone, especially in rural locations, but certainly in the US, where lazy bums get in their car to visit their neighbour two doors down, I think it pretty much holds true.

Quote:
Not in that article. I got that (partly) from talking to a family friend who had lived in the US (somewhere on the East coast IIRC) for about 20 years. She said nobody walked anywhere aside from in the cities. She had been stopped more than once whilst on foot by the police, who had asked her if she was OK and expressed puzzlement on being told she was just out walking.
Cool. Her anecdote is nice. But it still doesn't cover your assertion.

I live in an area where I have trouble walking one of my dogs because there are so many other people out walking and the dog has anxiety issues. We are not all LA or the East Coast.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 01:11 PM   #239
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
And irrelevant anyway. Even if the premise about the rest of us having any choice about driving weren't a lie, and even if the additional required premise that other methods of transportation don't use the same roads as private transportation anyway (admittedly not said explicitly yet but the argument really can't work without it) weren't also just as false, the position of "If other people don't like the risks that people like me want to take with their lives because it's just such a fun hobby, it's up to them to stay inside where they're out of our way" would still not a good position.
So much wilful misinterpretation and so many outright falsehoods it's not worth my time to consider any further.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 01:17 PM   #240
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Oh, I agree that millions of journeys could be reduced. But in a country of 300 million people and around a billion daily journeys, even 10 million journeys isn't going to mean much for some time. And doesn't come anywhere close to your claimed "most journeys" as below:


Where does 10 million come from? Why not 10 billion? Now whilst Delvo has tried, unsuccessfully, to twist my words and make out I'm saying the exact opposite of what I wrote, my point is that people are happy to take risks to do the things they want to do. If they weren't, most have other options.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Cool. Her anecdote is nice. But it still doesn't cover your assertion.

I live in an area where I have trouble walking one of my dogs because there are so many other people out walking and the dog has anxiety issues. We are not all LA or the East Coast.
Cool. Your anecdote is nice. But it still doesn't cover your assertion.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:13 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.