PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: invflatspin on March 19, 2018, 01:39:43 PM
-
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/uber-self-driving-vehicle-hits-171141094.html
They have very large pockets. For those not in the know, the whole concept of AI is more or less a joke. It's a big field of study, but the way humans learn, and the way computers have to learn are far different. Not sure if this would have happened to a human driven car or not, but noteworthy that there was a driver in the car at the time of the accident.
-
This movement for autonomous vehicle is very concerning to me. You have some people saying it’s inevitable. I don’t believe it.
As imperfect as humans can be, machines can be more imperfect.
Let me know how an autonomous vehicle can stay in its lane when it’s snowing and lane markers are nowhere to be found, like I had a mere 3 weeks ago. Or when lanes change due to construction. Or when a pedestrian does not operate like a fellow robot and walks where they shouldn’t walk.
I equate this to a captain sitting in the left seat shooting a CAT III C approach. I spoke to a former United 777 captain and Colonel who flew KC-135s. He didn’t like CAT III approaches, and was hair triggered to assume control from George if things didn’t look right. A human being is the final decision maker in managing the machine. That failsafe doesn’t exist in AV technology, where they are going “driverless.”
Scary shit.
-
Rush was talking about that one day.
His take on it was that the snowflakes think learning drive is too hard and not fun enough, so they are driving the self driving car thing out of laziness.
I know that I do not want a self driving car on any road i’m On. The likelihood of trouble is infinite.
-
I'm going to take the other side of this issue. Sure, autonomous vehicles have accidents. But they can't be as bad as humans, at least after a little more development.
Consider these numbers:
http://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safety-facts/road-crash-statistics
Annual United States Road Crash Statistics
Over 37,000 people die in road crashes each year
An additional 2.35 million are injured or disabled
Over 1,600 children under 15 years of age die each year
Nearly 8,000 people are killed in crashes involving drivers ages 16-20
Road crashes cost the U.S. $230.6 billion per year, or an average of $820 per person
Road crashes are the single greatest annual cause of death of healthy U.S. citizens traveling abroad
On Saturday, in front of my house, a guy driving while texting ran into a utility pole. He knocked the pole down and caused a 2 hour power outage. Then it took all day to splice the cables and remove the pole, causing further traffic problems. There were fire engines, ambulances, police cars, utility trucks and other people to direct traffic and clean up the mess. The driver walked away because the air bags deployed. But that wouldn't have happened with an autonomous car.
People are stupid and in general, unable to handle the rigors of driving.
-
Uber driver has a felony conviction. This is gonna get good...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/20/operator-self-driving-uber-vehicle-that-killed-arizona-pedestrian-was-felon-report-says.html
Uber is going down hard.
-
I'm going to take the other side of this issue. Sure, autonomous vehicles have accidents. But they can't be as bad as humans, at least after a little more development.
Consider these numbers:
http://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safety-facts/road-crash-statistics
On Saturday, in front of my house, a guy driving while texting ran into a utility pole. He knocked the pole down and caused a 2 hour power outage. Then it took all day to splice the cables and remove the pole, causing further traffic problems. There were fire engines, ambulances, police cars, utility trucks and other people to direct traffic and clean up the mess. The driver walked away because the air bags deployed. But that wouldn't have happened with an autonomous car.
People are stupid and in general, unable to handle the rigors of driving.
Just as long as your driverless machine doesn’t need a reboot, doesn’t hit a deer, doesn’t hit the kid running out to retrieve a ball, or can distinguish between a clear sky and a white tractor trailer, which by the way caused the Tesla passenger to be decapitated.
-
Uber driver has a felony conviction. This is gonna get good...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/20/operator-self-driving-uber-vehicle-that-killed-arizona-pedestrian-was-felon-report-says.html
Uber is going down hard.
What does his criminal record have to do with this accident? Is there suspicion that the driver intentionally hit the pedestrian?
-
Just as long as your driverless machine doesn’t need a reboot, doesn’t hit a deer, doesn’t hit the kid running out to retrieve a ball, or can distinguish between a clear sky and a white tractor trailer, which by the way caused the Tesla passenger to be decapitated.
All new technology has hiccups when it is first developed. It's unfortunate that accidents happen but I hope that something positive can be learned from this and help develop the technology into something much safer. I see potential in this market, though it's clearly not ready yet.
-
All new technology has hiccups when it is first developed. It's unfortunate that accidents happen but I hope that something positive can be learned from this and help develop the technology into something much safer. I see potential in this market, though it's clearly not ready yet.
Technology like this doesn’t live in a vacuum. Autonomous little cars that ride on rails? Maybe there is potential. But autonomous technology interacting with every living being, in the same three dimensional environment (not isolated like on rails), weather that obscures visibility and roadway hazards, and dealing with both deliberate and sometimes foolish human behaviors, while pretending to be safer, seems a bridge to far.
I read Popular Mechanics when I was a kid in the 1970s enough to know that some of the most “promising” technologies (Flying cars anyone? Electromagnetic rail cars anyone?) will never ever make it to prime time.
-
Technology like this doesn’t live in a vacuum. Autonomous little cars that ride on rails? Maybe there is potential. But autonomous technology interacting with every living being, in the same three dimensional environment (not isolated like on rails), weather that obscures visibility and roadway hazards, and dealing with both deliberate and sometimes foolish human behaviors, while pretending to be safer, seems a bridge to far.
You just described the history of aviation. I'm not saying the technology is perfect, or anywhere close to being ready, but it has to start somewhere.
We don't even know the details of what happened yet.
-
You just described the history of aviation. I'm not saying the technology is perfect, or anywhere close to being ready, but it has to start somewhere.
We don't even know the details of what happened yet.
Not really. At nearly every technological turn in aviation there was a man (or woman) willing to put their life on the line and risk being the first person at a fatal crash scene.
AV technology proposes its superiority is taking the human being out of the loop, and putting flesh bearing crash test dummies into the position of being mere baggage.
-
What does his criminal record have to do with this accident? Is there suspicion that the driver intentionally hit the pedestrian?
Uber is all about safety, security, background reports, driver profiles, etc. If I were the family of the dead woman, I'd be salivating over this news. I'm doubting it had any direct affect on the accident, but it will have a dramatic affect on a settlement. Moving away from just careless to potentially negligent. Never know what a lawyer can cook up, and what a jury is gonna do. Hell, look at some of the idiotic aviation awards.
-
Just as long as your driverless machine doesn’t need a reboot, doesn’t hit a deer, doesn’t hit the kid running out to retrieve a ball, or can distinguish between a clear sky and a white tractor trailer, which by the way caused the Tesla passenger to be decapitated.
I would trade that for a human that is texting, drinking, eating, putting on makeup,
or has cataracts, night blindness, 20/100 vision and is hearing impaired,
or is an invulnerable, immature teenager or a 90 yr old with no reflexes.
or any combination of all of those things.
If you could pass a law that makes humans slow down, stop for stop signs and pay attention to other cars, motorcycles and pedestrians and stop using the time behind the wheel to do everything besides drive, then I might say we don't need AVs.
-
People are being pampered right out of any responsibility for their lives.
The amount of things taken out of people's hands because they're hard, or time consuming, or inconvenient is turning yuong adults into pansies, incapable of taking care of themselves.
-
I would trade that for a human that is texting, drinking, eating, putting on makeup,
or has cataracts, night blindness, 20/100 vision and is hearing impaired,
or is an invulnerable, immature teenager or a 90 yr old with no reflexes.
or any combination of all of those things.
If you could pass a law that makes humans slow down, stop for stop signs and pay attention to other cars, motorcycles and pedestrians and stop using the time behind the wheel to do everything besides drive, then I might say we don't need AVs.
But those will not go away! Just like the 300 million guns out in the population, any gun “control” measures will be like pissing in the wind.
We aren’t living in Blade Runner times. We are living in centuries where people still wish to be in control of their own modes of transportation and of their own lives. Until such time as you mandate no one may drive a vehicle any more, your fantasy wish will remain a fantasy.
-
People are being pampered right out of any responsibility for their lives.
The amount of things taken out of people's hands because they're hard, or time consuming, or inconvenient is turning yuong adults into pansies, incapable of taking care of themselves.
A technology that is being designed to make vehicular transportation safer means people are being pampered right out of any responsibility for their lives?
Are you against all technology that has enhanced life somehow?
-
But those will not go away! Just like the 300 million guns out in the population, any gun “control” measures will be like pissing in the wind.
We aren’t living in Blade Runner times. We are living in centuries where people still wish to be in control of their own modes of transportation and of their own lives. Until such time as you mandate no one may drive a vehicle any more, your fantasy wish will remain a fantasy.
This post reminds of me Will Smith's character in I, Robot where he hated the robots and hated the autonomous driving vehicles. Not saying you're like that, just saying this post reminded me of that.
-
This post reminds of me Will Smith's character in I, Robot where he hated the robots and hated the autonomous driving vehicles. Not saying you're like that, just saying this post reminded me of that.
Never saw it.
I have a client that is a forge. Walk into the forge and it looks like you may have gone back in time 100 years, with giant 1,000 to 4,000 ton presses. It’s dark and somewhat dirty due to the nature of moving billets from press to press to manufacture the desired parts. They still have humans holding billets with tongs and moving them into a press that is mere inches from their arms.
They have begun to incorporate robots in some functions, for both efficiency and safety. However, in talking to the president, they don’t see a net diminution in their work force. What they do see is an increase in employees that have the skills to program, clean, maintain, repair, and improve the robots. Robots are like any other tool, and all tools need TLC and can break down at the worst moments.
I don’t hate machines. I hate putting my life in the hands of a piece of equipment that has no human override.
-
I have a small plane, it has a wing-leveler autopilot. It really is the greatest invention since sliced wheat bread. Of course, it's nothing like self-driving, as I have to set a heading and engage a nav source. But once that is done, I sit back and read the funny papers. Until I get near my destination, when I turn it off and hand fly to the parking spot.
-
I have a small plane, it has a wing-leveler autopilot. It really is the greatest invention since sliced wheat bread. Of course, it's nothing like self-driving, as I have to set a heading and engage a nav source. But once that is done, I sit back and read the funny papers. Until I get near my destination, when I turn it off and hand fly to the parking spot.
OMG,
What if your autopilot fails and dives you into a Sunday School class being taught by a bunch of Nuns while you are reading or sleeping? It COULD happen!
-
Those small planes should be outlawed! Death from the sky! Rich bastards
-
I have a small plane, it has a wing-leveler autopilot. It really is the greatest invention since sliced wheat bread. Of course, it's nothing like self-driving, as I have to set a heading and engage a nav source. But once that is done, I sit back and read the funny papers. Until I get near my destination, when I turn it off and hand fly to the parking spot.
Swing and a miss. I’ve got cruise control on my F-150 too. BFD.
Wikipedia says “An autonomous car (driverless car, self-driving car, robotic car) is a vehicle that is capable of sensing its environment and navigating without human input.”
It does not appear that AV advocates desire for a human to “hand fly” or physically drive an AV at any point in its journey.
Sorry you don’t see the difference.
-
Swing and a miss. I’ve got cruise control on my F-150 too. BFD.
Wikipedia says “An autonomous car (driverless car, self-driving car, robotic car) is a vehicle that is capable of sensing its environment and navigating without human input.”
It does not appear that AV advocates desire for a human to “hand fly” or physically drive an AV at any point in its journey.
Sorry you don’t see the difference.
I do see the difference, and I do see your point.
I just think you are wrong.
Yeah, right now, "self driving cars" or AVs , are not ready for prime time. They need a lot of work, research and development. But their potential to save lives and money is huge. I see little hope of improving the human efficiency of driving, but machines can be tuned and refined to make the highways much safer.
I reject the premise that AVs are bad because they may occasionally fail and cause a death, whereas we know that humans frequently fail and cause many, man deaths and much disruption.
-
Swing and a miss. I’ve got cruise control on my F-150 too. BFD.
Wikipedia says “An autonomous car (driverless car, self-driving car, robotic car) is a vehicle that is capable of sensing its environment and navigating without human input.”
It does not appear that AV advocates desire for a human to “hand fly” or physically drive an AV at any point in its journey.
Sorry you don’t see the difference.
Sigh,,,
Of course, it's nothing like self-driving
Ya kinda hafta read the post.
-
A technology that is being designed to make vehicular transportation safer means people are being pampered right out of any responsibility for their lives?
Are you against all technology that has enhanced life somehow?
I disagree with your premise that people should be out of the drivers seat because something might happen.
People need to be MORE responsible for their actions, not 'protected' from the consequences by inventing something so they never have to learn to drive - or drive safely.
The idea that we can nurse maid people from cradel to grave is ridiculous and dangerous, but great if you plan to try and become dictator of the world someday.
-
They have proven that cars can get it right. They are a long way from proving that cars cannot get it wrong.
Hang on, airplanes will not be far behind.
-
I disagree with your premise that people should be out of the drivers seat because something might happen.
I disagree with the part about "because something "MIGHT" happen. We know for a fact that thousands and thousands will die. We know that Billions of dollars will be wasted and we know that millions and millions will have their lives ruined. That is not the same as "something might happen".
I do not endorse forcing people out of the driver's seat. But I do endorse developing and deploying AVs. They are not mutually exclusive, although as long as humans are driving, the odds of "something happening" will be high.
When I was in Japan I thought traffic and drivers were crazy. First, there was so much of it. They were driving fast and weaving in and out of traffic. I was incredibly amazed that there were not more accidents. On the contrary, accidents were very few and far between (in my anecdotal experience). I was told that the reason was that in order to get a driver's license a very rigorous training and testing period was required. If you couldn't prove that you could skillfully operate a motor vehicle, you weren't given the privilege. Also, transgressions, like DUI, and moving violations were serious offenses.
If/when we deploy AVs on a large scale, we also need to require human drivers to improve their performance. Due to my vision and hearing, I can easily imagine I will not be able to renew my driver's license in about 10 or so years. At that time, I truly hope I can have an AV. But if not, then I will probably rely on a service like Uber.
-
I disagree with the part about "because something "MIGHT" happen. We know for a fact that thousands and thousands will die. We know that Billions of dollars will be wasted and we know that millions and millions will have their lives ruined. That is not the same as "something might happen".
I do not endorse forcing people out of the driver's seat. But I do endorse developing and deploying AVs. They are not mutually exclusive, although as long as humans are driving, the odds of "something happening" will be high.
When I was in Japan I thought traffic and drivers were crazy. First, there was so much of it. They were driving fast and weaving in and out of traffic. I was incredibly amazed that there were not more accidents. On the contrary, accidents were very few and far between (in my anecdotal experience). I was told that the reason was that in order to get a driver's license a very rigorous training and testing period was required. If you couldn't prove that you could skillfully operate a motor vehicle, you weren't given the privilege. Also, transgressions, like DUI, and moving violations were serious offenses.
If/when we deploy AVs on a large scale, we also need to require human drivers to improve their performance. Due to my vision and hearing, I can easily imagine I will not be able to renew my driver's license in about 10 or so years. At that time, I truly hope I can have an AV. But if not, then I will probably rely on a service like Uber.
On the driver training part, lots of truth there. Countries that require actual real driver's courses see a lot less in traffic fatalities and accidents.
In the US it's show up, take a simple written, a very basic eye test and a drive test on a predetermined course. And we wonder why there are so many accidents.
-
I've always considered driving lessons to be the responsibility of the parents, not the state.
Just like birth control education, responsible driving habits are the responsibility of BOTH parents.
Statists love removing parenting from every part of child rearing because they have abetter chance of raising sheep instead of adult humans.
-
I've always considered driving lessons to be the responsibility of the parents, not the state.
Just like birth control education, responsible driving habits are the responsibility of BOTH parents.
Statists love removing parenting from every part of child rearing because they have abetter chance of raising sheep instead of adult humans.
I will agree with you to the extent that providing the driving lessons, and paying for the testing procedures are the responsibility of the driver (or their parents).
But driving is not a natural right nor is it protected by any founding documents. Driving is a privilege granted by the state, and it is the duty of the state to assure that those granted that privilege are capable of exercising that right in a safe manner. And it is the duty of the state to enforce the laws regarding driving.
Just like flying. Unless you are in the military, the state doesn't provide flying lessons or free testing. That is up to you, but the state sets and enforces the rules.
-
I've always considered driving lessons to be the responsibility of the parents, not the state.
Just like birth control education, responsible driving habits are the responsibility of BOTH parents.
Statists love removing parenting from every part of child rearing because they have abetter chance of raising sheep instead of adult humans.
No doubt. But the system used in the US doesn’t require anyone to take any lessons whatsoever. And our roads prove it daily.
I believe a prerequisite of formal training be required in order for the state to test the applicant. And I believe the applicant be responsible to pay for that training, not the state.
But again, the bleeding hearts would start saying this is racist and harms the poor.
-
I will agree with you to the extent that providing the driving lessons, and paying for the testing procedures are the responsibility of the driver (or their parents).
But driving is not a natural right nor is it protected by any founding documents. Driving is a privilege granted by the state, and it is the duty of the state to assure that those granted that privilege are capable of exercising that right in a safe manner. And it is the duty of the state to enforce the laws regarding driving.
Just like flying. Unless you are in the military, the state doesn't provide flying lessons or free testing. That is up to you, but the state sets and enforces the rules.
With the advent of the automobile, government co-opted the right to travel freely and legislated it into a "privilege." Just as many states have done with firearms.
-
No doubt. But the system used in the US doesn’t require anyone to take any lessons whatsoever. And our roads prove it daily.
I believe a prerequisite of formal training be required in order for the state to test the applicant. And I believe the applicant be responsible to pay for that training, not the state.
But again, the bleeding hearts would start saying this is racist and harms the poor.
Not entirely true. Many states, including the one I'm in do require behind-the-wheel driver training for certain age/experience levels. Usually people under 21, who have never had a license from another state are required to take anywhere from 5 to 12 hours of driver training. Some states vary the age, and experience. In almost all states drivers under 18 are required to attend at least 10 hours of driver training to qualify for the test.
Whether this amount of training is enough, or whether it is actually used as intended is a separate question. But almost all states now require driver training for young, and less experienced people. Standards in most of the EU are much more strict.
-
With the advent of the automobile, government co-opted the right to travel freely and legislated it into a "privilege." Just as many states have done with firearms.
This is also a gray area. The various courts have determined that travel upon the public roads is actually a right. However, states may(and do) impose regulation, in the form of license and registration. However, that licensing and registration cannot be arbitrarily or capriciously removed or revoked. So, it's a right, but with limitations based on the common interests of the people of the various states.
-
I disagree with your premise that people should be out of the drivers seat because something might happen.
People need to be MORE responsible for their actions, not 'protected' from the consequences by inventing something so they never have to learn to drive - or drive safely.
The idea that we can nurse maid people from cradel to grave is ridiculous and dangerous, but great if you plan to try and become dictator of the world someday.
I never asserted that there shouldn't be someone in the driver's seat. I was challenging your statement that technology designed to make driving safer was somehow meant that they were being "pampered from responsibility".
Of course people need to be responsible for their own actions. Just because technology is evolving to the point that cars are becoming more autonomous doesn't mean that someone shouldn't know how to drive it.
-
This is also a gray area. The various courts have determined that travel upon the public roads is actually a right. However, states may(and do) impose regulation, in the form of license and registration. However, that licensing and registration cannot be arbitrarily or capriciously removed or revoked. So, it's a right, but with limitations based on the common interests of the people of the various states.
It’s always bugged me that politicians and others call driving a privilege and not a right. While true rights are not granted by government, government also does not enumerate what it’s “privileges” will be. I’ve never seen a state Constitution or state or local statute that says that citizens may drive on state or county roadways. That’s just ridiculous.
-
With the advent of the automobile, government co-opted the right to travel freely and legislated it into a "privilege." Just as many states have done with firearms.
This is incorrect for a few reasons. Driving has never been a "right", however the Courts, including the Supreme Court, have recognized travel between the states as a right since at least 1823. Generally speaking, however, the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Constitution covers this area. People have always been free to travel between the states, but how they do so is what is regulated. Nothing says you must drive.
-
This is incorrect for a few reasons. Driving has never been a "right", however the Courts, including the Supreme Court, have recognized travel between the states as a right since at least 1823. Generally speaking, however, the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Constitution covers this area. People have always been free to travel between the states, but how they do so is what is regulated. Nothing says you must drive.
I don’t perceive that regulating the use of the public square or public assets such as roadways turns the basic freedom to travel into a “privilege.”
Blacks Law Dictionary describes “privilege” as “A particular benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A right, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, against or beyond the course of the law. Privilege is an exemption from some burden or attendance, with which certain persons are indulged, from a supposition of law that the stations they fill, or the offices they are engaged in, are such as require all their time and care, and that, therefore, without this indulgence, it would be impractical to execute such offices to that advantage which the public good requires.”
Driving isn’t a privilege.
-
Ectually, the way it's worded the right exists to travel upon the public roads by conveyance, including cars trucks buses, etc. Not only does the right exist to travel, but also to use the public roads for such travel. Again with the caveat that such right is limited by the various states through non-arbitrary licensure et registration of people, cars, trucks, buses, etc. BTW, I've found nowhere has the word 'privilege' been used, except by state authorities who mistakenly think they own the roads, bridges, etc.
For more interesting reading, this goes back to before cars, all the way to Roman times and the Via Appia. But - I digress.
-
Driving isn’t a privilege.
Driving is a Privilege, Not a Right
Driving is not a constitutional right. You get your drivers license based on the skills you have and the rules you agree to follow. After you get your driving license you must continue to demonstrate your ability to drive safely on the road. If you fail to demonstrate this ability, you will be issued traffic tickets, or even have your license suspended or revoked. No one has more right to the road than anyone else.
https://driversed.com/driving-information/the-driving-privilege/driving-is-a-privilege-not-a-right.aspx
-
Driving is a Privilege, Not a Right
Driving is not a constitutional right. You get your drivers license based on the skills you have and the rules you agree to follow. After you get your driving license you must continue to demonstrate your ability to drive safely on the road. If you fail to demonstrate this ability, you will be issued traffic tickets, or even have your license suspended or revoked. No one has more right to the road than anyone else.
https://driversed.com/driving-information/the-driving-privilege/driving-is-a-privilege-not-a-right.aspx
Now there's an unimpeachable source.
-
Now there's an unimpeachable source.
Just the first of many that I pulled up after I made my assertion.
See if you (or anyone) can find any source that agrees that driving is a right.
-
Here ya go:
Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 — Va: Supreme Court 1930 (available via Google Scholar) presents that inaugural quote in an entirely different context:
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.
The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.
The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.
Just like I said. Driving is a right. In fact, the VA SC directly contradicted the privilege argument. However, it does recognize those lower authorities(states) power to regulate and license. So - big answer; driving is a right. Small caveat; the right is limited to non-arbitrary regulation.
Oops, I put US court, but it was VA court.
-
Here ya go:
Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 — Va: Supreme Court 1930 (available via Google Scholar) presents that inaugural quote in an entirely different context:
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.
The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.
The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.
Just like I said. Driving is a right. In fact, the SCOTUS directly contradicted the privilege argument. However, it does recognize those lower authorities(states) power to regulate and license. So - big answer; driving is a right. Small caveat; the right is limited to non-arbitrary regulation.
The Supreme Court does not decide what is a right and what is not. They are merely supposed to interpret the Constitution (we can have a separate discussion as to whether or not they actually do that). By that logic, Dred Scott was not a U.S. citizen, President Roosevelt had the right to intern Japanese Americans, abortion is a right, etc. The list can go on and on. We often times cite Supreme Court cases to make our argument. We were one vote from the Supreme Court stating that individual gun ownership was not connected to the militia clause of the Second Amendment. Had that happened, I bet you would've disagreed; I know I would have.
Further, the Constitution is pretty clear in regards to what is a federal matter and what is not, which is written in the Tenth Amendment. This could quickly go into an Incorporation Doctrine discussion, which I'm not intentionally trying to steer towards. I think a better way to look at driving is not so much that it is a right but rather a state would have to show why one couldn't drive.
If driving is a right then other things must be rights as well, correct? Healthcare or housing, for example.
-
Hey, you wanted law, I gave you law. got a problem with it, take it up with the various courts. There are plenty of other examples out there for you to find. the language is clear and unambiguous. Driving is a right. Driving is not a 'mere' privilege.
I'm done with this discussion.
News today says that notwithstanding the car was a Uber self-drive, the car?/driver may not be at fault, but the ped may be at fault. Which is sounding like it would be little or no different had it been a human operated car, and the ped violated the law, and was at fault. Still more investigation. The Uber car has full video forward, both sides and to the rear, so there should be ample evidence to look at.
-
Side note: according to the opinion of one person who reviewed the evidence, the Uber autonomous car and its driver are likely not at fault in the accident:
"The Volvo had at least two video cameras, and the city’s police chief said she watched video of the collision, and that it would’ve been “difficult” for either a human or machine driver to avoid striking Herzberg, police chief Sylvia Moir told the San Francisco Chronicle.
“She came from the shadows right into the roadway,” Moir said. “It appears that the Uber would likely not be at fault in this accident.”"
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/20/uber-likely-not-at-fault-in-self-driving-cars-killing-of-pedestrian/ (https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/20/uber-likely-not-at-fault-in-self-driving-cars-killing-of-pedestrian/)
-
Driving is a Privilege, Not a Right
Driving is not a constitutional right. You get your drivers license based on the skills you have and the rules you agree to follow. After you get your driving license you must continue to demonstrate your ability to drive safely on the road. If you fail to demonstrate this ability, you will be issued traffic tickets, or even have your license suspended or revoked. No one has more right to the road than anyone else.
https://driversed.com/driving-information/the-driving-privilege/driving-is-a-privilege-not-a-right.aspx
I gave you Blacks Law Dictionary’s definition of Privilege. You failed to acknowledge it.
You quoted driversed.com. Pardon me if I don’t yield to your citation of a website.
If you’d like to point to a Constitution or a statute that defines driving as a privilege, I’ll listen. Until then, I’ll contend it is a legally and factually incorrect term generated by self-important politicians and bureaucrats, and is otherwise a meaningless term designed to put the citizen in his place by the ever benevolent government.
-
Hey, you wanted law, I gave you law.
Yes you did. Thanks.
So I'll stop insisting that driving is a privilege rather than a right.
But I will maintain that AVs will reduce accidents and death by reducing the human element. Note I said "reduce" twice, not "eliminate'. Many humans will choose to exercise their "right" to drive. But AVs can be a good thing and people should also be given the right to choose to use them. And I submit that the more people that use the AVs, the fewer accidents and deaths there will be.
-
Just the first of many that I pulled up after I made my assertion.
See if you (or anyone) can find any source that agrees that driving is a right.
Are you seriously saying that a right must be enumerated in order to exist? Are our only rights those included in the first 10 Amendments?
I think you need to go back to school.
-
Are you seriously saying that a right must be enumerated in order to exist? Are our only rights those included in the first 10 Amendments?
I think you need to go back to school.
Point taken.
But just for the record, what exactly is your position on AVs again? Do you seriously think they will cause as much carnage on the road as humans? Stupid arguments like snow preventing AVs from staying within the lines ignores the ability of engineers to develop systems that work.
-
Point taken.
But just for the record, what exactly is your position on AVs again? Do you seriously think they will cause as much carnage on the road as humans? Stupid arguments like snow preventing AVs from staying within the lines ignores the ability of engineers to develop systems that work.
I walk on city streets. I drive on city streets, in rush hour, in bad weather, and often when the shit hits the fan I make the assumption that the person behind the wheel of another car will do what is necessary to keep us both safe. That doesn’t always work, but I trust the human brain more than I trust a machine.
Earlier I gave examples of promises of the future that never materialized - levitating rail cars, flying cars, etc. it may have been cost, technology failures, or simple impracticality in this world. Perhaps in a Truman Show-like environment where people and obstructions and traffic are all controlled by a control room, AVs could work. In the dynamic environment of my 30-45 minute commute from downtown Milwaukee to my home in the country, dodging other traffic, inattentive drivers, pedestrians, and deer on roads constantly under construction and frequently obscured by snow, I have significant and grave concerns that they will provide greater danger to an already growing, dynamic environment.
-
I walk on city streets. I drive on city streets, in rush hour, in bad weather, and often when the shit hits the fan I make the assumption that the person behind the wheel of another car will do what is necessary to keep us both safe. That doesn’t always work, but I trust the human brain more than I trust a machine.
Earlier I gave examples of promises of the future that never materialized - levitating rail cars, flying cars, etc. it may have been cost, technology failures, or simple impracticality in this world. Perhaps in a Truman Show-like environment where people and obstructions and traffic are all controlled by a control room, AVs could work. In the dynamic environment of my 30-45 minute commute from downtown Milwaukee to my home in the country, dodging other traffic, inattentive drivers, pedestrians, and deer on roads constantly under construction and frequently obscured by snow, I have significant and grave concerns that they will provide greater danger to an already growing, dynamic environment.
Well then, we just have different expectations, and neither of us will be proven right or wrong for several years. So the best thing we can do now is to have a beer (or a Scotch) and drink to those differences and wait to see who is right. And then see if you will admit you were wrong! ;)
-
Well then, we just have different expectations, and neither of us will be proven right or wrong for several years. So the best thing we can do now is to have a beer (or a Scotch) and drink to those differences and wait to see who is right. And then see if you will admit you were wrong! ;)
Ha! I’ll drink to that. I’ve got a bottle of Blanton’s at home waiting for the right moment. In the mean time I’ll crack into my Basil Hayden’s later tonight.
-
Side note: according to the opinion of one person who reviewed the evidence, the Uber autonomous car and its driver are likely not at fault in the accident:
"The Volvo had at least two video cameras, and the city’s police chief said she watched video of the collision, and that it would’ve been “difficult” for either a human or machine driver to avoid striking Herzberg, police chief Sylvia Moir told the San Francisco Chronicle.
“She came from the shadows right into the roadway,” Moir said. “It appears that the Uber would likely not be at fault in this accident.”"
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/20/uber-likely-not-at-fault-in-self-driving-cars-killing-of-pedestrian/ (https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/20/uber-likely-not-at-fault-in-self-driving-cars-killing-of-pedestrian/)
According to https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/video-driver-autonomous-uber-distracted-005504917.html
Video: The driver of the autonomous Uber was distracted before fatal crash
The video shows the victim crossing a dark street when an Uber self-driving Volvo XC90 strikes her at 40 mph. It also shows the person who is supposed to be babysitting the autonomous vehicle looking down moments before the crash. It's unclear what is distracting the minder. It's also unclear why Uber's systems did not detect and react to the victim who was clearly moving across its range of sensors at walking speeds.
-
According to https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/video-driver-autonomous-uber-distracted-005504917.html
Video: The driver of the autonomous Uber was distracted before fatal crash
The video shows the victim crossing a dark street when an Uber self-driving Volvo XC90 strikes her at 40 mph. It also shows the person who is supposed to be babysitting the autonomous vehicle looking down moments before the crash. It's unclear what is distracting the minder. It's also unclear why Uber's systems did not detect and react to the victim who was clearly moving across its range of sensors at walking speeds.
Interesting. I see they link to a twitter post with interior and exterior videos so one can judge (semi-graphic - does not show the actual collision):
https://twitter.com/TempePolice/status/976585098542833664/video/1 (https://twitter.com/TempePolice/status/976585098542833664/video/1)
I didn't perceive any slowing indicating braking once the woman started coming into view - slow reacting algorithm to obstacles? Also, if the light-gathering ability of the recording camera is like that of whatever cameras they use for object detection, then I can see an issue - overdriving the headlights.
-
Jeez, if this guy was on his phone at the time - oh man, what a Jalapeno enhanced shit-storm this will be.