Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Would a self driving car world make it safe for cyclists?

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Would a self driving car world make it safe for cyclists?

Old 03-11-18, 08:18 AM
  #1901  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,816
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1593 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,026 Times in 576 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Nobody has said that AV's becoming a big thing will never happen ...
So you're just haggling over the time frame?
jon c. is offline  
Old 03-11-18, 08:39 AM
  #1902  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,005

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,561 Times in 1,060 Posts
Originally Posted by jon c.
So you're just haggling over the time frame?
That, and the notion that the promoters' PR and goals of producing self-driving driver-less vehicles safe for use on public streets and highways and a profitable business model for manufacturing, selling and/or operating them are either a done deal or guaranteed to ever move in the foreseeable future from the testing mode into the done deal or "big thing" mode.

Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 03-11-18 at 08:42 AM.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-11-18, 09:31 AM
  #1903  
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,961
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2024 Post(s)
Liked 673 Times in 460 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Clicking this URL returns:
"Corrupted Content Error

The site at https://www.wired.com/story/californ...ving-car-laws/ has experienced a network protocol violation that cannot be repaired.

The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because an error in the data transmission was detected.

Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem."


I understand your skepticism. Nobody is testing autonomous vehicles in Iowa (if other Iowans are like you, not a surprise) and you're one of those unimaginative literalists who must see something with their own eyes before admitting to its existence, i.e. flat earthers, evolution deniers, etc.

The difference is, unlike flat earthers who have no chance of being sent to space no matter how much they huffed at NASA, you can head to select American cities TODAY and sit in any number of perfectly operating autonomous vehicles. Yes, they currently have drivers, because it is required by law; but if you simply sat in one, you would realize that the drivers are simply law satisfying ornaments who do absolutely nothing. The cars are getting around on their own, and are statistically safer than human drivers. What makes this even sadder is that you don't even have to pay money to travel to Silicone Valley. There are plenty of videos around of the technology working, if only you would bother doing a simple Google search instead of wasting your time here arguing with your head in the sand.

I would suggest you cease backing yourself into such a corner on this issue. Otherwise, you're going to look real foolish next year when steering wheel less vehicles start appearing everywhere, and your plausible deniability evaporates. It's going to happen no matter how much you try to turn your head away. You should never underestimate the ability of corporations to get law passed in record time. Chances are good it'll happen ahead of schedule instead of late.

When steering wheel less vehicles do become legal, people here are going to remember, and you might have to start resorting to lame excuses such as "website doesn't work, I can't see it so it doesn't exist". It's Wired.com, not some random site hosted in a dank basement. The site works perfectly fine. Did you try refreshing the page or using a different browser, or perhaps your phone's internet? I'm not saying you're lying. I'm just saying there's an IT issue on your side.

Lastly, you should really stop using the words 'foreseeable future'. It reflects very poorly on you and is probably the reason people in this thread are being so hostile to your point of view. I'll let you figure out why.

Last edited by Yan; 03-11-18 at 09:56 AM.
Yan is offline  
Old 03-11-18, 09:52 AM
  #1904  
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,961
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2024 Post(s)
Liked 673 Times in 460 Posts
Originally Posted by tyrion
In a sense, you'll still be paying for a driver, you'll just be paying less for a driver. But it won't be a "driver", it will be a "remote transportation experience representative", or if you're lucky it will be a "senior remote transportation experience representative". If you have enough money you can get a "executive transportation experience senior representative". But that's nothing - VIP members can get the highest rated transportation experience management professionals the city of Las Vegas can offer...
In the context of the article, it probably means someone must be able to remotely turn the test vehicle off, if something starts to go wrong. It wouldn't be a requirement after the testing phase is complete.

Manufacturers wouldn't be wasting their time on the technology if the vehicles still had to be driven via remote control. That would save no money compared to having a driver on board. The whole point is that Uber, etc can maximize their profits by not having to pay drivers. Of course, the rest of us plebs will also benefit by being able to get an extra 20 minutes of sleep on the way to work.

Last edited by Yan; 03-11-18 at 09:58 AM.
Yan is offline  
Old 03-11-18, 10:15 AM
  #1905  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,005

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,561 Times in 1,060 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan
In the context of the article, it probably means someone must be able to remotely turn the test vehicle off, if something starts to go wrong. It wouldn't be a requirement after the testing phase is complete.

Manufacturers wouldn't be wasting their time on the technology if the vehicles still had to be driven via remote control. That would save no money compared to having a driver on board. The whole point is that Uber, etc can maximize their profits by not having to pay drivers.
In the case of Uber, doncha mean reduce their stupendous ($Billions/year) losses?
Uber would reduce the expense of driver payments but would increase the expenses for buying, operating, fueling, licensing, registration and maintenance of their vehicles now currently paid by the drivers; whether such a change in operation would be an overall monetary gain, loss or wash has yet to be determined.

Uber is a looong way from ever seeing profits. The Uber owners only hope of ever making money is a pump and dump IPO offering and selling their inflated stock to another set of well-heeled suckers, and perhaps selling their proprietary software to some other reputable organization that can incorporate it into a business model for profitable taxi operations that preferably doesn't depends on financial abuse of its employees.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-11-18, 10:23 AM
  #1906  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,005

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,561 Times in 1,060 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan
I understand your skepticism.
[SKIP]

Lastly, you should really stop using the words 'foreseeable future'. It reflects very poorly on you and is probably the reason people in this thread are being so hostile to your point of view. I'll let you figure out why.
You do not "understand" anything about me or what I have posted on this subject.
Discussing "foreseeable future" reflects poorly on me? Is that part of your "understanding" process?

Lastly, some people ARE hostile to having their sacred cows gored by skepticism, doubt and most of all by facts contrary to their wishful thinking. Doesn't change the facts nor reality. This thread is evidence of that phenomenon.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-11-18, 10:36 AM
  #1907  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,005

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,561 Times in 1,060 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan
The difference is, unlike flat earthers who have no chance of being sent to space no matter how much they huffed at NASA, you can head to select American cities TODAY and sit in any number of perfectly operating autonomous vehicles. Yes, they currently have drivers, because it is required by law; but if you simply sat in one, you would realize that the drivers are simply law satisfying ornaments who do absolutely nothing. The cars are getting around on their own, and are statistically safer than human drivers. What makes this even sadder is that you don't even have to pay money to travel to Silicone Valley. There are plenty of videos around of the technology working, if only you would bother doing a simple Google search instead of wasting your time here arguing with your head in the sand.
You should use Google without the "good news only" filter:
https://theconversation.com/are-auto...-drivers-90202
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-11-18, 10:45 AM
  #1908  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bristol, R. I.
Posts: 4,340

Bikes: Specialized Secteur, old Peugeot

Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 663 Post(s)
Liked 496 Times in 299 Posts
Auto pilots have been used in aircraft for decades, Not merely to hold a course, but to takeoff and land. In an aircraft though, the environment is fairly predictable barring mechanical emergencies. It seems to me that the environment for an auto is quite different in that there is an infinite number of varied situations that the artificial intelligence processor would have to deal with, with near 100% certainty. I suspect that given enough time and research money, the need for near certainty can be dealt with. The problem then is to determine when such a system is ready for widespread use. I am not convinced that the current state of the art is currently at the necessary standard.
berner is offline  
Old 03-11-18, 10:55 AM
  #1909  
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,961
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2024 Post(s)
Liked 673 Times in 460 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
You do not "understand" anything about me or what I have posted on this subject.
Discussing "foreseeable future" reflects poorly on me? Is that part of your "understanding" process?

Lastly, some people ARE hostile to having their sacred cows gored by skepticism, doubt and most of all by facts contrary to their wishful thinking. Doesn't change the facts nor reality. This thread is evidence of that phenomenon.
Pretty much what I expected. I didn't really think you could figure it out. If you were capable of it you would have done so long ago. But don't give up, go ahead and mull it over some more. I have to say though, I've been on these forums going on 12 years and rarely have I ever witnessed irony to this degree. Not even in the Politics & Religion sub forum. Absolutely crazy.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
In the case of Uber, doncha mean reduce their stupendous ($Billions/year) losses?
Plenty of corporations, especially disruptive tech startups, turn massive losses during their early years. Ten years ago people like you were denigrating Facebook for the exact same thing. Nobody's laughing today. That aside, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how corporate investment works. Corporations have long been moving away from the dividend model, toward rewarding their stockholders via share buybacks. Plenty of high profile companies, such as Amazon, Google, and Facebook never pay dividend no matter how much money they make. Investment returns on high profile corporations like Uber are only tenuously tied to their short term revenue. As long as people have faith in the long term viability of the business, neither the management nor stockholders care much about year on year losses on the short term. It's not a very complex topic but it's too much for bikeforums. I'm sure you get the gist though.

It is discouraging that you have chosen to ignore the substantive portions of my posts, to focus instead on tangential and irrelevant bantering. But, I cannot be surprised. You have written nothing worth reading over the entire thread.
Yan is offline  
Old 03-11-18, 11:03 AM
  #1910  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,005

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,561 Times in 1,060 Posts
The site does work on the Chrome browser.

Most relevant fact:
"The new rules do require a remote operator be able to control the vehicle"

Advantage for the vehicle owner or the user of using a remote operator service over a regular taxi with a paid driver, other than, at least so far, the test operators cannot charge anything for the ride, let alone what it really costs?
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-11-18, 11:03 AM
  #1911  
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,961
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2024 Post(s)
Liked 673 Times in 460 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
You should use Google without the "good news only" filter:
https://theconversation.com/are-auto...-drivers-90202
I'm not sure whether you really read that article. It says nothing about autonomous vehicles being unsafe. All it says is:

1. It admits autonomous vehicles are statistically safer.
2. It proposes that more data is needed before we can be completely sure.

I agree with your article wholeheartedly.


Here's another article: Google's Self-Driving Cars Are Ridiculously Safe | Big Think

Summary: Google's self driving cars are ridiculous safe. After 1.8 million miles, Google's self-driving car has been involved in only 13 accidents — all of which were caused by the other car.
Yan is offline  
Old 03-11-18, 11:07 AM
  #1912  
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,961
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2024 Post(s)
Liked 673 Times in 460 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
The site does work on the Chrome browser.

Most relevant fact:
"The new rules do require a remote operator be able to control the vehicle"

Advantage for the vehicle owner or the user of using a remote operator service over a regular taxi with a paid driver, other than, at least so far, the test operators cannot charge anything for the ride, let alone what it really costs?
Yes, we have been discussing this in the thread. Maybe you missed it. I talk about it in post #1803 above. Certainly, we have to be sure of the safety of these vehicles before we give them full government approval. For us cyclists, this is extremely important.

I have to go attend some other business. Have a good day.
Yan is offline  
Old 03-11-18, 11:20 AM
  #1913  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,005

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,561 Times in 1,060 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan
I understand your skepticism. Nobody is testing autonomous vehicles in Iowa (if other Iowans are like you, not a surprise) and you're one of those unimaginative literalists who must see something with their own eyes before admitting to its existence, i.e. flat earthers, evolution deniers, etc.
Originally Posted by Yan
I have to go attend some other business. Have a good day.
While you are out and about, take note of how many self-driving driver-less motor vehicles you see with your own eyes in use in Shanghai, use your vivid imagination if necessary.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-11-18, 10:27 PM
  #1914  
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,927

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times in 255 Posts
Originally Posted by tyrion
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...san-francisco/



Those people are going to be sorry when Skynet becomes self aware.

For now they'll probably settle for robbing autonomous Domino's dellvery cars.
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 03-11-18, 10:29 PM
  #1915  
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,927

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times in 255 Posts
This thread has more life than The Walking Dead.
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 10:32 AM
  #1916  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Like Duh, man. You totally missed the point of my response to jefnvk who asked about what the exact difference might be between flying in air traffic vice driving in road traffic. Like you, he seems to think that air traffic and hands off flying software/hardware solutions are virtually interchangeable with road traffic and driver free hardware/software issues.
No, I don't. How you got this impression is beyond me, but I know it's not from anything I've written here.
Ninety5rpm is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 10:33 AM
  #1917  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan

You sound like the people in the late 1700s telling everyone the newly discovered electricity was useless.
This.

Except they had good reason to be skeptical. AV tech today is nothing compared to what electricity was then.
Ninety5rpm is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 10:47 AM
  #1918  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick
And one reason they are asking governments for permission early is because governments take time to work out the rules and laws. Like years. Many, no most, areas have not even started to look into this. I'm not saying AV's becoming a big thing will never happen, just that it'll take much longer than some in this thread are dreaming it will... and a couple of high profile crashes will push it back even more.
Are you really not aware of how bureaucracies and legislatures and government executives are all eager to get out of the way of AV tech and progress?
Ninety5rpm is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 11:01 AM
  #1919  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
You should use Google without the "good news only" filter:
https://theconversation.com/are-auto...-drivers-90202
OMG. What swill. This is just click-bait for the skeptical. Among the references is a 2016 article about an error made by Tesla's lame Level 2 Autopilot technology.

What Is The Automation Doing? Mode Awareness Problems Catch Tesla By Surprise - Ergonomics in Design

It's sad that you fall for this stuff and can't read more critically.
Ninety5rpm is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 11:43 AM
  #1920  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,005

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,561 Times in 1,060 Posts
Originally Posted by Ninety5rpm
Are you really not aware of how bureaucracies and legislatures and government executives are all eager to get out of the way of AV tech and progress?
Relevant to the subject topic, a recent letter, dated March 5, 2018 was sent to U.S. Senate leadership on the subject of the Driverless Car Bill.

The letter is signed by many individual representing an array of organizations very much involved in highway safety, including bicyclist and pedestrian advocates. Entire letter can be read here: Letter to Senate Leaders on Driverless Car Bill ? Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

Extracts:
“… the industry is faced with the complex challenge of developing driverless technologies and solving a myriad of operational problems including weather, traffic signals, and cybersecurity, among others. Additionally, experts have identified the difficult and potentially fatal flaw of autonomous vehicle technology to accurately detect and react to bicyclists on the road. Today, more people are using bicycles for transportation and unfortunately, more cyclists are dying on our streets due to crashes. Most of these deaths are in urban areas where driverless cars are expected to be used first. Without resolving this problem, driverless cars will pose an even bigger threat to the safety of bicyclists.”

“Allowing the public sale of unproven autonomous vehicle technologies, granting automakers broad and unsafe exemptions from existing federal standards, and ignoring the need for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to issue minimum safety requirements to address real problems will have disastrous consequences for public safety and public acceptance of driverless cars. We therefore urge you to put public safety first and reject the bogus claims of urgency by some automakers. The following crucial improvements to the bill are needed.”

The entire letter is worthwhile reading , especially for those enamored of the Puffery from the AV promoters and financial interests speculating on the dreamy next big thing.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 12:30 PM
  #1921  
Tortoise Wins by a Hare!
 
AlmostTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Looney Tunes, IL
Posts: 7,398

Bikes: Wabi Special FG, Raleigh Roper, Nashbar AL-1, Miyata One Hundred, '70 Schwinn Lemonator and More!!

Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1549 Post(s)
Liked 942 Times in 504 Posts
Originally Posted by Ninety5rpm
Are you really not aware of how bureaucracies and legislatures and government executives are all eager to get out of the way of AV tech and progress?


Eager as some of them may be, I think you underestimate the amount of details that must be worked out before full driverless auto legislation can be approved. Cali’s been at it since 2006 and still isn’t there. Has the federal government even started?

I also think you underestimate what the public outcry will be over “death by robocar”. Every deadly crash will ensure even more time before any big rollout comes to be... and more restrictions.
AlmostTrick is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 12:42 PM
  #1922  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,005

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,561 Times in 1,060 Posts
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick


Eager as some of them may be, I think you underestimate the amount of details that must be worked out before full driverless auto legislation can be approved.
True, and not every state official or governor wishes to be in Uber and Google's pocket (or pocketbook as the case may be in AZ) willing to give away the farm for a handout when it comes to public safety.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 12:46 PM
  #1923  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Relevant to the subject topic, a recent letter, dated March 5, 2018 was sent to U.S. Senate leadership on the subject of the Driverless Car Bill.

The letter is signed by many individual representing an array of organizations very much involved in highway safety, including bicyclist and pedestrian advocates. Entire letter can be read here: Letter to Senate Leaders on Driverless Car Bill ? Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

Extracts:
“… the industry is faced with the complex challenge of developing driverless technologies and solving a myriad of operational problems including weather, traffic signals, and cybersecurity, among others. Additionally, experts have identified the difficult and potentially fatal flaw of autonomous vehicle technology to accurately detect and react to bicyclists on the road. Today, more people are using bicycles for transportation and unfortunately, more cyclists are dying on our streets due to crashes. Most of these deaths are in urban areas where driverless cars are expected to be used first. Without resolving this problem, driverless cars will pose an even bigger threat to the safety of bicyclists.”

“Allowing the public sale of unproven autonomous vehicle technologies, granting automakers broad and unsafe exemptions from existing federal standards, and ignoring the need for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to issue minimum safety requirements to address real problems will have disastrous consequences for public safety and public acceptance of driverless cars. We therefore urge you to put public safety first and reject the bogus claims of urgency by some automakers. The following crucial improvements to the bill are needed.”

The entire letter is worthwhile reading , especially for those enamored of the Puffery from the AV promoters and financial interests speculating on the dreamy next big thing.
Sadly, I read that ridiculous letter. Then I read the signatories. Not one has a background suggesting any understanding of the technology they fear.
Ninety5rpm is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 04:32 PM
  #1924  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2112 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times in 443 Posts
Originally Posted by Ninety5rpm
Sadly, I read that ridiculous letter. Then I read the signatories. Not one has a background suggesting any understanding of the technology they fear.
That’s rich. As far as I can tell, you are a self-selected “expert” in all things AI and all things bicycle.

History repeats (Calvinists).

-mr. bill
mr_bill is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 05:00 PM
  #1925  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mr_bill
That’s rich. As far as I can tell, you are a self-selected “expert” in all things AI and all things bicycle.

History repeats (Calvinists).

-mr. bill
I'm no expert in AI, but I know enough to recognize nonsense when I see it. That letter is nonsense. But of the signatories, perhaps my favorite is the President of the Truck Safety Coalition, which survives from truck crashes (by representing truck crash victims and their families). Gee, I wonder why they're against AVs.
Ninety5rpm is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.