(02-15-2018 03:50 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 03:19 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Autonomous vehicles are the answer.

I listened to a Radiolab podcast a few months ago that brought up an interesting problem with autonomous vehicles. They began by discussing the trolley problem, a thought experiment in which there's a runaway trolley going down a track towards a group of five people standing on the track. You're standing next to a lever that can divert the trolley down another path that only has one person standing on it. So you can A) Do nothing and five people die; or B) Pull the lever diverting the trolley and one person dies. Most people would choose to pull the lever to save the five people at the expense of the one.

Another thought experiment imagines a scenario where, once again, there's a runaway trolley going down a track headed toward five people standing on the track. Except this time you're standing on a bridge above the track and there's a very large man standing at the edge of the bridge. You can either A) Do nothing and five people die; or B) Push the large man causing him to fall to his death, stopping the trolley but saving the five people. People have a much more difficult time answering this question, as it requires you to kill that person yourself.

Now applying this dilemma to driver-less vehicles, someone will have to program these vehicles to make certain hard decisions. For instance, say a cyclist loses control of his bike and veers out in front of your autonomous car. The car can either A) continue along its path and have a 95% chance at hitting the cyclist; or B) veer out of the way but have a 25% chance at hitting a family of four walking along the sidewalk.

I think automation will end up saving millions of lives, but there will be some interesting ethical aspects involved in programming the cars that I don't think a lot of people consider.

C) hit the brakes and no one gets hurt. These trolley problem scenarios are just ridiculous.

What does the thought leader think?

(02-15-2018 11:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 11:24 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I wonder if it will ever get to the point where cell phones are automatically temporarily disabled when the car is turned on and in gear?

I believe in negative reinforcement. We have breath monitoring devices for blood alcohol levels. Now we just need to install a taser in the drivers back rest so that when a cell phone is activated the engine switches off, the emergency flashers switch on, and the driver is tased and an automatic sensor steers the vehicle to the side of the road. Then all the police have to do is stop and pick up the driver.

It punishes the guilty and gives a perverse pleasure to the more alert motorists.

Laws against in car cell phone use don't work because they are very hard to enforce. On your drive today, just look to your left/right and I guarantee you'll see some dolt on a cell phone. IMO, I wouldn't mind cell phones being automatically disabled while the car is in motion. Texts can now be forwarded to the car and if important someone can pull over and make the call.

(02-15-2018 11:43 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  What's the big deal? This is about like drug overdose deaths. When you consider the amount of drivers and miles drove and the amount of drugs and people taking them.....

it's such a tiny tiny %

Those that do die is tragic to their family and friends but again...part of life and considering the total people driving. It's about as common as reaching into a gallon jar of jelly beans and picking out the 1 red jellybean. Or maybe a 5 gallon bucket and 1 red jellybean

Part of life and to be honest without people dying of other causes but old age. This planet would correct it with just as many deaths...in other ways.

Now maybe I'm wrong on this but I believe safety features are put on cars to limit cost of injuries and not so much death.

Yet we wring our hands over mass shootings and freak out over gun control—when you consider there are over 350 million guns in the US, the number of mass shootings is virtually minuscule. That said, the emotional impact of watching the aftermath of something like the school shooting this week makes that low percentage seem irrelevant.

I listen to podcasts, Audible, and Apple Music all the time when I drive. I have become very aware of keeping the phone on the dash (maps) or on the side seat when driving.

(02-16-2018 10:32 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 11:43 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  What's the big deal? This is about like drug overdose deaths. When you consider the amount of drivers and miles drove and the amount of drugs and people taking them.....

it's such a tiny tiny %

Those that do die is tragic to their family and friends but again...part of life and considering the total people driving. It's about as common as reaching into a gallon jar of jelly beans and picking out the 1 red jellybean. Or maybe a 5 gallon bucket and 1 red jellybean

Part of life and to be honest without people dying of other causes but old age. This planet would correct it with just as many deaths...in other ways.

Now maybe I'm wrong on this but I believe safety features are put on cars to limit cost of injuries and not so much death.

Yet we wring our hands over mass shootings and freak out over gun control—when you consider there are over 350 million guns in the US, the number of mass shootings is virtually minuscule. That said, the emotional impact of watching the aftermath of something like the school shooting this week makes that low percentage seem irrelevant.

You got it...emotional. Laws based on emotion are usually bad laws and sometimes they infringe on our civil rights. As a whole we need to be very careful on these emotional laws......while they are design to limit or punish the criminal.

At some point it's just as easy to move the law on to everyone and even misuse it.

As we are seeing with laws made to "protect us" after 9/11

The gun used in each of these school killings was just the tool....

unless you stop underlining factors (which is impossible) like social media these type of killing will continue to increase. Just as deaths from driving. So do we start to limit how many cars we can own. Do we limit those that go faster. Or maybe we limit speeds to 35 mph and anyone doing over that no longer can own a car.

Death happens and when it happens to children it's more emotional...we all (most of us) can relate it to what if it was my child.

We can't base laws or at least we shouldn't on the emotion of it could have been my child. We can do everything in our power to make something safer but in the end if will not stop it. Probably not even decrease it enough where it matters.

So do we start to limit cars, like some want to do guns and others want to do with drugs..drugs that do have a helpful benefit to a lot of people.

(02-16-2018 10:53 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  You got it...emotional. Laws based on emotion are usually bad laws and sometimes they infringe on our civil rights. As a whole we need to be very careful on these emotional laws......while they are design to limit or punish the criminal.

At some point it's just as easy to move the law on to everyone and even misuse it.

As we are seeing with laws made to "protect us" after 9/11

The gun used in each of these school killings was just the tool....

unless you stop underlining factors (which is impossible) like social media these type of killing will continue to increase. Just as deaths from driving. So do we start to limit how many cars we can own. Do we limit those that go faster. Or maybe we limit speeds to 35 mph and anyone doing over that no longer can own a car.

Death happens and when it happens to children it's more emotional...we all (most of us) can relate it to what if it was my child.

We can't base laws or at least we shouldn't on the emotion of it could have been my child. We can do everything in our power to make something safer but in the end if will not stop it. Probably not even decrease it enough where it matters.

So do we start to limit cars, like some want to do guns and others want to do with drugs..drugs that do have a helpful benefit to a lot of people.

Can't you apply this argument to Trump's travel ban then too? There has been no foreign born terrorist attacks on US soil from the countries Trump listed on the ban since 1975. The attacks that do happen usually come from people radicalized here while in the US. Even so, the vast majority of immigrants from the majority muslim countries listed will live their lives in peace without ever committing a serious crime. I've even heard that immigrants are much less likely to commit a crime than native citizens.

Also, there have been quite a few laws put in place to direct the automobile industry safer for their customers.

For instance, before the government mandated that steering columns be collapsible in 1968, tens of thousands of people would get severely injured or killed in collisions due to the rigidity of their steering columns before that law was passed. Seat belt laws passed in 1968 have also reduced traffic related injuries and deaths. Catalytic converters and unleaded gasoline were also mandated by the government, and that has lead to a cleaner environment and a healthier population. I've seen some studies that attribute a average IQ gain and a drop in the crime rate due to the phasing out of lead in gasoline.

Glass windshields back in the 40's and 50's used to tear people apart during wrecks. Now they stay in one piece for the most part.

(02-16-2018 11:49 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 10:53 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  You got it...emotional. Laws based on emotion are usually bad laws and sometimes they infringe on our civil rights. As a whole we need to be very careful on these emotional laws......while they are design to limit or punish the criminal.

At some point it's just as easy to move the law on to everyone and even misuse it.

As we are seeing with laws made to "protect us" after 9/11

The gun used in each of these school killings was just the tool....

unless you stop underlining factors (which is impossible) like social media these type of killing will continue to increase. Just as deaths from driving. So do we start to limit how many cars we can own. Do we limit those that go faster. Or maybe we limit speeds to 35 mph and anyone doing over that no longer can own a car.

Death happens and when it happens to children it's more emotional...we all (most of us) can relate it to what if it was my child.

We can't base laws or at least we shouldn't on the emotion of it could have been my child. We can do everything in our power to make something safer but in the end if will not stop it. Probably not even decrease it enough where it matters.

So do we start to limit cars, like some want to do guns and others want to do with drugs..drugs that do have a helpful benefit to a lot of people.

Can't you apply this argument to Trump's travel ban then too? There has been no foreign born terrorist attacks on US soil from the countries Trump listed on the ban since 1975. The attacks that do happen usually come from people radicalized here while in the US. Even so, the vast majority of immigrants from the majority muslim countries listed will live their lives in peace without ever committing a serious crime. I've even heard that immigrants are much less likely to commit a crime than native citizens.

You mean the ban President Obama wanted? But to answer you question...no, there's a huge difference between taking away or limiting the rights of a US Citizen. Vs safety concerns from non US Citizens. One has constitutional protection. The other doesn't. Of course we are talking a few different things and not all 3 are constitutional rights

One other thing...the President was given this constitutional right to limit foreign travel. It has zero to do with past acts and everything to do with future. But again, did you have the same opinion when President Obama was for it this ban?

I think it is smartphone use more than anything else.
I can't tell you how may times I see people driving way slower than traffic, weaving, changing lanes cutting off another car, sitting at a light long after it has turned green and you look over and they are looking down and you know it's their phone.

While it might inconvenience passengers, auto-shutting phones off while cars are in motion is the answer.
You can argue stupid people who are on phones driving are a danger to themselves...but they are also a danger to take out others.

I have my Iphone is set to not work while I am driving right now so the technology is already there. It just needs to be a law rather than a choice.

And no one can argue we are taking away someone's right in his instance....
there is no Constitutional right to using a smartphone.

(02-15-2018 10:50 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

Quote:But a surge in driver distraction, increased miles driven and other factors have driven the closely watched number up at an alarming rate.

While I agree that distracted driving is a contributing factor the bolded part above is why there has been an increase.

Plus the fact that with the economy struggling for as long as it did people tended to hold on to legacy vehicles longer than they would have in a better economy. You can add all the new safety features in the world to a car and they don't do any good if people aren't buying the vehicle.

If my experience on Dallas highways holds true, there is a feedback factor where more miles driven leads to more congestion and more drivers taking risks to "beat" the traffic. North Dallas has grown a lot in the past few years, and I've seen a big rise in both congestion and accidents in my drive to work. I suspect that there is some correlation in traffic deaths and how much infrastructure lags its its demand.

(02-15-2018 11:47 AM)Chappy Wrote:  So it surged the same year my daughter got her permit... hmmm... Sorry folks.

One of the scariest things in the world was being behind my daughter when she was running late to school and thinking "that's not how I taught her to drive", whilst at the same time kind of wishing she and the car she was tailgaiting would get out of the way so I could pass them, then realizing the contradiction...

(02-16-2018 12:07 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 11:49 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 10:53 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  You got it...emotional. Laws based on emotion are usually bad laws and sometimes they infringe on our civil rights. As a whole we need to be very careful on these emotional laws......while they are design to limit or punish the criminal.

At some point it's just as easy to move the law on to everyone and even misuse it.

As we are seeing with laws made to "protect us" after 9/11

The gun used in each of these school killings was just the tool....

unless you stop underlining factors (which is impossible) like social media these type of killing will continue to increase. Just as deaths from driving. So do we start to limit how many cars we can own. Do we limit those that go faster. Or maybe we limit speeds to 35 mph and anyone doing over that no longer can own a car.

Death happens and when it happens to children it's more emotional...we all (most of us) can relate it to what if it was my child.

We can't base laws or at least we shouldn't on the emotion of it could have been my child. We can do everything in our power to make something safer but in the end if will not stop it. Probably not even decrease it enough where it matters.

So do we start to limit cars, like some want to do guns and others want to do with drugs..drugs that do have a helpful benefit to a lot of people.

Can't you apply this argument to Trump's travel ban then too? There has been no foreign born terrorist attacks on US soil from the countries Trump listed on the ban since 1975. The attacks that do happen usually come from people radicalized here while in the US. Even so, the vast majority of immigrants from the majority muslim countries listed will live their lives in peace without ever committing a serious crime. I've even heard that immigrants are much less likely to commit a crime than native citizens.

You mean the ban President Obama wanted? But to answer you question...no, there's a huge difference between taking away or limiting the rights of a US Citizen. Vs safety concerns from non US Citizens. One has constitutional protection. The other doesn't. Of course we are talking a few different things and not all 3 are constitutional rights

One other thing...the President was given this constitutional right to limit foreign travel. It has zero to do with past acts and everything to do with future. But again, did you have the same opinion when President Obama was for it this ban?

What EXACT ban did Obama want, and why did it not pass? Did he want to ban certain states and exclude other states which, based on history, are at least as dangerous, if not more dangerous (e.g. Saudi Arabia?)

(02-16-2018 01:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 12:07 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 11:49 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 10:53 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  You got it...emotional. Laws based on emotion are usually bad laws and sometimes they infringe on our civil rights. As a whole we need to be very careful on these emotional laws......while they are design to limit or punish the criminal.

At some point it's just as easy to move the law on to everyone and even misuse it.

As we are seeing with laws made to "protect us" after 9/11

The gun used in each of these school killings was just the tool....

unless you stop underlining factors (which is impossible) like social media these type of killing will continue to increase. Just as deaths from driving. So do we start to limit how many cars we can own. Do we limit those that go faster. Or maybe we limit speeds to 35 mph and anyone doing over that no longer can own a car.

Death happens and when it happens to children it's more emotional...we all (most of us) can relate it to what if it was my child.

We can't base laws or at least we shouldn't on the emotion of it could have been my child. We can do everything in our power to make something safer but in the end if will not stop it. Probably not even decrease it enough where it matters.

So do we start to limit cars, like some want to do guns and others want to do with drugs..drugs that do have a helpful benefit to a lot of people.

Can't you apply this argument to Trump's travel ban then too? There has been no foreign born terrorist attacks on US soil from the countries Trump listed on the ban since 1975. The attacks that do happen usually come from people radicalized here while in the US. Even so, the vast majority of immigrants from the majority muslim countries listed will live their lives in peace without ever committing a serious crime. I've even heard that immigrants are much less likely to commit a crime than native citizens.

You mean the ban President Obama wanted? But to answer you question...no, there's a huge difference between taking away or limiting the rights of a US Citizen. Vs safety concerns from non US Citizens. One has constitutional protection. The other doesn't. Of course we are talking a few different things and not all 3 are constitutional rights

One other thing...the President was given this constitutional right to limit foreign travel. It has zero to do with past acts and everything to do with future. But again, did you have the same opinion when President Obama was for it this ban?

What EXACT ban did Obama want, and why did it not pass? Did he want to ban certain states and exclude other states which, based on history, are at least as dangerous, if not more dangerous (e.g. Saudi Arabia?)

Obama listed the same seven countries partly because two Iraqi men who lied their way past U.S. immigration officials and continued their terrorist-related activities after being admitted as refugees. They were making bombs to target American troops in Iraq. They were living in my home town, Bowling Green Ky when they got caught.

I'm not talking the time to look it up but I know all 7 countries were target by Obama. As for passing...nothing needed passing because....

"The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power," the Supreme Court said in 1950. And lest there be doubt, Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the president "may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants" whenever he thinks it "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

(02-16-2018 02:44 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 01:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 12:07 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 11:49 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 10:53 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  You got it...emotional. Laws based on emotion are usually bad laws and sometimes they infringe on our civil rights. As a whole we need to be very careful on these emotional laws......while they are design to limit or punish the criminal.

At some point it's just as easy to move the law on to everyone and even misuse it.

As we are seeing with laws made to "protect us" after 9/11

The gun used in each of these school killings was just the tool....

unless you stop underlining factors (which is impossible) like social media these type of killing will continue to increase. Just as deaths from driving. So do we start to limit how many cars we can own. Do we limit those that go faster. Or maybe we limit speeds to 35 mph and anyone doing over that no longer can own a car.

Death happens and when it happens to children it's more emotional...we all (most of us) can relate it to what if it was my child.

We can't base laws or at least we shouldn't on the emotion of it could have been my child. We can do everything in our power to make something safer but in the end if will not stop it. Probably not even decrease it enough where it matters.

So do we start to limit cars, like some want to do guns and others want to do with drugs..drugs that do have a helpful benefit to a lot of people.

Can't you apply this argument to Trump's travel ban then too? There has been no foreign born terrorist attacks on US soil from the countries Trump listed on the ban since 1975. The attacks that do happen usually come from people radicalized here while in the US. Even so, the vast majority of immigrants from the majority muslim countries listed will live their lives in peace without ever committing a serious crime. I've even heard that immigrants are much less likely to commit a crime than native citizens.

You mean the ban President Obama wanted? But to answer you question...no, there's a huge difference between taking away or limiting the rights of a US Citizen. Vs safety concerns from non US Citizens. One has constitutional protection. The other doesn't. Of course we are talking a few different things and not all 3 are constitutional rights

One other thing...the President was given this constitutional right to limit foreign travel. It has zero to do with past acts and everything to do with future. But again, did you have the same opinion when President Obama was for it this ban?

What EXACT ban did Obama want, and why did it not pass? Did he want to ban certain states and exclude other states which, based on history, are at least as dangerous, if not more dangerous (e.g. Saudi Arabia?)

Obama listed the same seven countries partly because two Iraqi men who lied their way past U.S. immigration officials and continued their terrorist-related activities after being admitted as refugees. They were making bombs to target American troops in Iraq. They were living in my home town, Bowling Green Ky when they got caught.

I'm not talking the time to look it up but I know all 7 countries were target by Obama. As for passing...nothing needed passing because....

"The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power," the Supreme Court said in 1950. And lest there be doubt, Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the president "may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants" whenever he thinks it "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

Still doesn't make too much sense to target just those countries. I mean, if you want it to be effectual. It seems pretty similar to enacting gun laws.

(02-16-2018 03:00 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 02:44 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 01:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 12:07 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 11:49 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  Can't you apply this argument to Trump's travel ban then too? There has been no foreign born terrorist attacks on US soil from the countries Trump listed on the ban since 1975. The attacks that do happen usually come from people radicalized here while in the US. Even so, the vast majority of immigrants from the majority muslim countries listed will live their lives in peace without ever committing a serious crime. I've even heard that immigrants are much less likely to commit a crime than native citizens.

You mean the ban President Obama wanted? But to answer you question...no, there's a huge difference between taking away or limiting the rights of a US Citizen. Vs safety concerns from non US Citizens. One has constitutional protection. The other doesn't. Of course we are talking a few different things and not all 3 are constitutional rights

One other thing...the President was given this constitutional right to limit foreign travel. It has zero to do with past acts and everything to do with future. But again, did you have the same opinion when President Obama was for it this ban?

What EXACT ban did Obama want, and why did it not pass? Did he want to ban certain states and exclude other states which, based on history, are at least as dangerous, if not more dangerous (e.g. Saudi Arabia?)

Obama listed the same seven countries partly because two Iraqi men who lied their way past U.S. immigration officials and continued their terrorist-related activities after being admitted as refugees. They were making bombs to target American troops in Iraq. They were living in my home town, Bowling Green Ky when they got caught.

I'm not talking the time to look it up but I know all 7 countries were target by Obama. As for passing...nothing needed passing because....

"The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power," the Supreme Court said in 1950. And lest there be doubt, Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the president "may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants" whenever he thinks it "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

Still doesn't make too much sense to target just those countries. I mean, if you want it to be effectual. It seems pretty similar to enacting gun laws.

You or I don't get to make that choice....

neither should activist judges, when the law is so clear

Back to the original post, I've noticed a larger number of people driving too close behind me, mostly seems like a lot of women doing that lately. If I had to brake fast they'd hit me for sure. I also had one of them tailgating me on a curved highway entrance ramp with lots of snow on the ground, and I wasn't even going slow. Seems like people just think they're impervious to harm.

I also think even hands-free talking on a phone while driving is too much of a distraction in some cases.

(02-16-2018 03:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Back to the original post, I've noticed a larger number of people driving too close behind me, mostly seems like a lot of women doing that lately. If I had to brake fast they'd hit me for sure. I also had one of them tailgating me on a curved highway entrance ramp with lots of snow on the ground, and I wasn't even going slow. Seems like people just think they're impervious to harm.

I also think even hands-free talking on a phone while driving is too much of a distraction in some cases.

Some people aren't distracted, they are just stupid. Stupid should hurt. If anyone is tailgating me I just keep on keeping on and don't care about them. It's their choice to get mad and none of my concern.

(02-16-2018 05:16 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 03:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Back to the original post, I've noticed a larger number of people driving too close behind me, mostly seems like a lot of women doing that lately. If I had to brake fast they'd hit me for sure. I also had one of them tailgating me on a curved highway entrance ramp with lots of snow on the ground, and I wasn't even going slow. Seems like people just think they're impervious to harm.

I also think even hands-free talking on a phone while driving is too much of a distraction in some cases.

Some people aren't distracted, they are just stupid. Stupid should hurt. If anyone is tailgating me I just keep on keeping on and don't care about them. It's their choice to get mad and none of my concern.

If both of you would scoot your granny asses over into the right lane. No one would be close to you.


007, I understand you were on a ramp but come on admit it....you drive in that left lane going 65 in a 65 just to show those behind you who's the boss. VA49er basically said he does.

In a lot of states you do that **** you getting a ticket. In most states the left lane is used to pass. It's not the "fast lane to do the speed limit" like some people think.

Even if you are doing the limit or a few miles over....the law in these states state. You do not have ANY right to slow impending traffic. Not even if you are doing the speed limit.

Let me guess the red truck is one of you


https://www.yahoo.com/news/blame-tense-c...01983.html

I gotta admit to something I've taught my kids. If I signal to change lanes and I see the car in the other lane speed up ... by doing that, they have acknowledged to me that they saw my signal. Therefore, I know it is safe to cut in front of them. That they waste gas and break pads in the process is their consequence for being a dick. Where I'm reluctant to change lanes is only when I don't think the other driver is alert, or my car doesn't have the power to make it over safely. I don't have much sympathy for drivers that think they are entitled to a lane whether or not they are driving faster or slower than someone else. Likewise, I get out of the way for faster drivers and when someone signals...

Sent from my SM-G892U using CSNbbs mobile app

My peeve is entering an on-ramp that has slow to stopped traffic ahead and the jack hole behind you jumps to the left lane before you get a chance to.