I appreciate the context this article has over policy and best practice. This quote still confuses me though.
"And oftentimes bad tactics translates to needing to use more force than was necessary,” Gross said. “The officer shouldn’t put himself in front of the car. He can’t stop the car with his body.”
Is he alluding to there being possible justification as a result of a bad tactical maneuver? Also confused about the moving vehicle definition. Does that apply to situations when the vehicle that is approached is currently parked?
These Skynet plots to wiping out the human race are getting really convoluted as they keep making Terminator sequels/prequels. I guess they’re going for the long game by going after the mushroom foragers first.
the only thing that makes driverless tech at all useful is reducing parking spots. If people don’t need to own cars then cities can be built denser, be more walkable and have lower fixed infrastructure costs (less parking and parking access).
Of course they don’t do any of this as well as subways and trains so its still ultimately going to only be effective as a transitional measure.
The only comparison chart I could find miles driven with AV safety was a 2020 graph that showed you were safer with autopilot off than on. Maybe that’s improved but most accidents are weird events and computers don’t handle weird shit as well.
I made this argument back when the first mandates were happening. I don’t recall any major uproar about seat belts yet for some reason it’s a big deal when we do the same thing for masks.
The craziest part of it is to me is that seat belts basically only affect the person wearing it, but masks affect both the person wearing it and the people around them. So if anything it makes more sense for masks to be mandated over seat belts.
And not just seat belts, we already mandate clothing in the form of public exposure/indecency laws. And that doesn’t even have any tangible effect on anything. Technically we could all be running around naked but I don’t see any uproar about that either. I can at least somewhat understand wanting freedom and/or autonomy but the people complaining aren’t even consistent about it.
Oh it was the same uproar (it’s uncomfortable, it will harm me, we’ve never had to do this before, I can’t breathe, my religion says I shouldn’t, etc.) but at least that was a bit more in face about saving your life.
There was absolutely an “uproar,” against seatbelts when they were mandated.
It wasn’t able to get the same level of traction because you didn’t have social media echo chambers or the president and other influential “leadership” shitting all over the idea of mandates.
When I brought up seatbelts to anti maskers they usually told me they didn’t think the government should be allowed to tell them to wear a seatbelt either. These people are idiots who will fight against self preservation on principle, bless their hearts.
This is all rich peoples problems now in a pointless and drug induced search for some form of fulfillment, but just another festival chaser with money.
I don’t know whether you’re referring to just the attendees or the artists as well, but I have a group of friends presenting an installation this year (Conversations With A Squad), they’re middle-class for the most and do this out of sheer passion.
Now I cannot assure you with the utmost certainty that drugs won’t be involved at all
God I hate so much the technowizards who think all of our society problems around cars are going to be fixed by self-driving cars. My dad always does this -- any time you point out the issues with expense and congestion near him in the city downtown, he'll start talking about how any day now the self-driving cars will fix it and won't need to park and it'll be sunshine and roses.
Nope. The geometric problems of cars are not solved by fleets of vehicles that park in huge lots at the edge of town. It may mitigate issues, but it does not fix them.
Want to get rid of downtown congestion? Putting people in automated cars won't do it. Only getting rid of the cars will.
The only upside is it will make it that much easier to get rid of mandatory min parking rules which are totally unscientific and should never have been codified to law in the first place.
Yes and no. It will definitely fix some issues and create new ones. Would likely free up some space and be better overall for most.
Less cars is generally better. Plus I don’t like driving. I get highly stressed and it ruins my day. Yet when someone else drives me I’m all good. So for me it’s a win.
I’m guessing there would be a whole host of new issues. Similar to this one. Broken down vehicles blocking access to areas. Parking in weird places.
Job loss from gig economy with Uber and such. Potentially an increase in cars if companies could have fleets of cars. An absolute shit tonne of bandwidth being required for all these cars. Software updates bricking cars. Some people enjoy driving so negative for them maybe. I’m sure there are plenty others. Won’t know issues until roll out really happens. Pros and cons to most things unfortunately.
Full disclosure, I have an older Tesla with only Auto Pilot (AP). I agree with the sentiment that autonomous vehicles won’t lead to some congestion free utopia. I do however, think they would improve conditions for the people in them, and quite possibly diminish conditions for people still driving.
When driving with AP, I’ve found myself many times pacing behind a car going slower than I set my cruise for. It’s much less mentally taxing and easier driving like that, lending to an overall better experience. That’s similar to how I see autonomous vehicles being implemented. They might add to congestion and increase drive times, but the “driver” won’t care. Unfortunately for those not in autonomous vehicles, this also increases their drive times.
For what its worth, lower speeds are one of the most straightforwardly effective way to reduce congestion. Road capacity is higher at lower speeds. Errors are less likely to cause serious incidents at lower speeds. Traffic controls don't need to be so aggressive, causing you to spend less of your trip fully-stopped. For most trips, going a bit slower has a completely negligible effect on drive times, especially when you can get most of traffic to do it leading to more laminar flow.
The problem is, only road design is effective to lower speeds. You can't just ask drivers to slow down or change the posted signs, you have to re-engineer roads. People tend to just drive at whatever speed feels comfortable on the road.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.