I feel like there are very few districts where das boot could get elected. None prob in Kentucky.

this is das boot's timeframe

this is what I said

Google said their timeframe was 5 years just last week. I said nothing to say they wouldn't be here, just that they're far off. 20 years seems reasonable, but 40 is far more likely than 10 imo. Even if they can make a ton of them technologically they have to convince people to use them, navigate all the old people that make laws, and then actually sell them. Plus this is one of those all or nothing technologies. It doesn't help a lot if 20% of the people are still driving regularly. It would be like a bunch of horse drawn carriages using the width of the roads when the auto boom happened 100 years ago.

lets try this. If you only punish intent then you let a ****ton of people off the hook for doing things that should be highly criminalized.

please provide examples or expand.

Yes, your post had no words about overall prevalence, just the denial it would exist at all.

Why doesn't it help if only 80% of people use it?

I think CDL is underestimating the quickness with which people can adapt to a big change in technology.

I think once they get legalized for sale and use by the general public, it will take < 3 years in that area to have 95% of people using driverless cars, and it will take less than 15 years from that time for them to be in 90+% of the US.

Part of the issue I imagine is people won't get the new technology until they get a new car so the turnover rate of cars may affect it. As far as new cars go I might agree in maybe 10, not 3.

There's a significant loss of fuel efficiency associated with going faster. More gas, more pollution, more demand and higher gas prices, yatta, yatta, yatta. Given the gubment has already set improved mileage targets, I think it unlikely they'd scrap the whole concept moving forward. Plus, if I know my legislaters, they'll give driverless cars a chip capping their speed at 35 mph or something insane.

Plus, when you think about it, due to the structures of Social Security & Medicair, the feds actually have a pretty rich incentive to let people keep on getting killed prematurely.

I thought the same thing about electric cars until the 'cheap ones' came out at ~$40,000.

The price point is the biggest factor in determining market saturation.

Given that a sizeable chunk of Americans seem convinced that the government wants to march into their homes and take their guns away, I'd say you may not get to 90% like, ever.

But I wouldn't care. I'd have a robot chauffer doing the legwork while I take a nap or watch TV on the ride, meanwhile my robot is constantly updating which evasive maneuvers he has to be ready to execute while those other suckers try to focus their puny human attentions on the road.

What if I shot you in the face with no intent to murder you but the intent to injure you severely? Should be assault even if you die under your proposed law. Its dumb to not look at results in the legal system.

Also, what about fathers who didn't intend to get someone pregnant. They're all off the hook now?

I said they're further away than people think and they'll be here by the time our kids can drive. I never denied it would exist. In fact, I expressed belief that it would. If you're trying to make a point by taking it literally then you're not even being literal enough to be right so idk what the angle is here.

It does help, but not much if it isn't fully adopted for a ton of reasons relating the the ability to change laws, safety issues, as well as efficiency. Its not that it can't be adopted at all, but the benefits will be on the margin. If everyone adopts it we can change traffic flow and manage it through a connected computer network to drastically increase efficiency by simply putting your destination in.

Nah, I think people adapt rapidly, but this isn't twitter. It is something people are going to have to spend the equivalent of the median annual income on (give or take). It is also taking control out of people's hands where they have had control for as long as they have known. People don't readily relinquish this. Think of how many people you know that HATE riding with other people as opposed to driving. Those people probably won't love the idea of telling it to go and sitting idle.

There is absolutely no way I would ever consider paying $50,000+ for a driverless car right now when I can get my Camry for $225/month. The cost tradeoff isn't worth it.

If they somehow miraculously price then <$30k then I'm in, but there are tons of people in the US that don't have the credit or cash to spend more than $5k on a car.

that was a facetious response to RAIDS' post. I do not think I am likely to be president in 2017 (gotta build up my resume a bit more), nor do I anticipate that the road will be dominated by driverless cars by then. A little bit more hope for getting advantage in basketball.

There was a story about some group of people who had a winnebago and they were driving down a straight highway. They put it on cruise control and everyone went to the back to play cards and a couple minutes later when the highway turned their lollebago went off the road and flipped several times. Not sure if everyone died but there was at least 1 survivor who said that they thought cruise control handled speed as well as direction.

WAT

Isnt this a famous lawsuit where the drivers sued and won because it wasnt clear that the cruise control would not drive their RV? Maybe apocryphal though (ata: yup, snopes confirms legend).

Driverless cars within 10 years.

Currently listening to "Thinking Fast & Slow" by Kahneman.

Narrator sounds like Liam Neeson trying to sound mysterious like from Batman. So now I'm picturing Batman being asked to do little memory and perception puzzles.

Book needs to get a lot more interesting, pronto.

You'd also not be 35. I always thought that part of the constitution was weird.

there are two big problems with driverless cars. they are still going to be accidents even if the rate of accidents is massively reduced.

the first problem is liability. who is responsible when your driverless car hits someone elses driverless car? you? google? ford? the government?

the other problem is that a lot of people will flip out when people start dying due to accidents they had no control over. of course this won't be a rational reaction but it's gonna happen. just wait until mothers against driverless cars puts some crying soccer mom in front of the 60 year old men who run our country and she tells them the sob story about how her poor teenaged daughter who was harvard bound got killed by the evil google machine that ran her into a concrete wall while she could only scream in horror.

I can't keep up with this thread (every time I open it there are like 3,000 new posts) but.....

Nutshot as a mod? I obviously approve

And ntnBo is absolutely hilarious

Book is great IMO.

Or is it trying to brainwash me into joining the league of shadows?

Not mutually exclusive.

Most experts think we're 15-20 years from widespread driverless cars, phildo is right that the #1 issue is liability.

Lol. I'm starting to think you're going around taking pictures of your own "art work" and posting it here. Anal blasters? Really?