Support Not Just Bikes by signing up to Nebula: http://go.nebula.tv/notjustbikesWatch this video ad-free and sponsor-free on Nebula:https://nebula.tv/videos/...
I’m all for mass transit, but there are some jobs that require cars. My partner does home health, for example. She often has to take a lot of bulky durable medical equipment (DME) to a person’s home. Even if mass transit existed in all of her territory, transporting DME on it would be prohibative, especially when there are often multiple people that need different pieces of equipment.
This is precisely the kind of niche, but vital use case that even places that have otherwise already completely banned cars (like certain islands) allow cars for. Nobody will ever take this away.
That’s a good point to illustrate the importance of banning cars for personal transportation; all of the traffic is making your partner’s job slower and more stressful
Humans are not getting any better at driving. Self-driving cars will eventually lead to tens of thousands of human lifes saved annually. Why do you want to prevent this?
Waymo gives 100,000+ rides a week and has never killed anyone, to my knowledge. Seems like it might already be safer than a human driver, it must have millions of miles driven.
Will it? All I have seen is that self driving cars will decide to kill people because they cannot make decisions about life in a way that preserves it.
Maybe in like 1000 years plus they might become good enough but by that time the conditions that make cars a necessity would be no more or at least severly reduced.
I’d rather have AI than human drivers. Most people are fine, but a small percent are dangerously incompetent drivers, and another small percent are psychopaths.
You’re just making an argument for better regulations and testing. Let’s start with elderly drivers, who are no longer physically and mentally capable of the maneuvering required to operate a vehicle at speed. Anyone over 65 should have to retest on a regular schedule. And when they fail, they lose their car too.
And all of this is an argument for effective and reliable PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
Singular acts of violence don’t work, organized violence doesn’t work either and will only lead to organized repression in response. The actual solution is to elect local representatives who are willing to prevent the nightmare scenario from the video from happening.
If you want to see a real-world example of this: Toppling over rental e-scooters didn’t get them removed from cities, but petitioning municipal governments to ban them did.
Technically it does, but not locally in the age of national governments. Before you’re saying it, the moment it stops being a local movement, it would work even less and lead to the organized repression I mentioned. To support my point, see how harsh government reaction has been to activists merely gluing themselves to the street (not to mention, how most people were happy about this crackdown).
And no, I doubt “The Revolution” that magically solves all of our problems (unlike most revolutions) will be started by anti-AV riots.
Violence is a tool and like many tools it must be used correctly and at the right times. However, it’s also not the only tool in the toolbox in which there are many.
Destroy the cars. That’s what should be done about it.
I’m all for mass transit, but there are some jobs that require cars. My partner does home health, for example. She often has to take a lot of bulky durable medical equipment (DME) to a person’s home. Even if mass transit existed in all of her territory, transporting DME on it would be prohibative, especially when there are often multiple people that need different pieces of equipment.
This is precisely the kind of niche, but vital use case that even places that have otherwise already completely banned cars (like certain islands) allow cars for. Nobody will ever take this away.
That’s a good point to illustrate the importance of banning cars for personal transportation; all of the traffic is making your partner’s job slower and more stressful
I meant the self driving ones. Apologies for not clarifying.
Humans are not getting any better at driving. Self-driving cars will eventually lead to tens of thousands of human lifes saved annually. Why do you want to prevent this?
You’re looking for “may eventually”. We’re not anywhere near this so using it as a current argument is rather silly.
Waymo gives 100,000+ rides a week and has never killed anyone, to my knowledge. Seems like it might already be safer than a human driver, it must have millions of miles driven.
Will it? All I have seen is that self driving cars will decide to kill people because they cannot make decisions about life in a way that preserves it.
Maybe in like 1000 years plus they might become good enough but by that time the conditions that make cars a necessity would be no more or at least severly reduced.
Do you have any examples?
Watch the video, my dude.
watch the video, my dude
Ah, got it. Could also be my migraine making me not fully get things.
No worries! Hope you feel better soon!
Or do not allow AI controlled cars in the city. Maybe its okay on longer roads without traffic.
Sure, but if they are allowed…
I’d rather have AI than human drivers. Most people are fine, but a small percent are dangerously incompetent drivers, and another small percent are psychopaths.
Assuming AI is perfect…
It doesn’t have to be perfect. Hundreds of thousands die annually in car crashes. The bar isn’t that high.
Making them die by Ai instead by human doesn’t help anybody.
I think assuming AI will be as bad at driving is a bad assumption.
You’re just making an argument for better regulations and testing. Let’s start with elderly drivers, who are no longer physically and mentally capable of the maneuvering required to operate a vehicle at speed. Anyone over 65 should have to retest on a regular schedule. And when they fail, they lose their car too.
And all of this is an argument for effective and reliable PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
Singular acts of violence don’t work, organized violence doesn’t work either and will only lead to organized repression in response. The actual solution is to elect local representatives who are willing to prevent the nightmare scenario from the video from happening.
If you want to see a real-world example of this: Toppling over rental e-scooters didn’t get them removed from cities, but petitioning municipal governments to ban them did.
Disagree that violence doesn’t work, especially organised.
Technically it does, but not locally in the age of national governments. Before you’re saying it, the moment it stops being a local movement, it would work even less and lead to the organized repression I mentioned. To support my point, see how harsh government reaction has been to activists merely gluing themselves to the street (not to mention, how most people were happy about this crackdown).
And no, I doubt “The Revolution” that magically solves all of our problems (unlike most revolutions) will be started by anti-AV riots.
Violence is a tool and like many tools it must be used correctly and at the right times. However, it’s also not the only tool in the toolbox in which there are many.
Yes, that is a fair point.