Mobile 155

Prepaid is the best way to go. You kick the bucket, the service comes and gets you and the loved ones get a box to do with as they wish.

tandempower

When do you predict the first bike/pedestrian death involving a driverless car will occur, if ever?

Walter S

You first.

350htrr

I am going to say never... Meaning it was NOT, the autonomous vehicles fault... That kind of thing is almost always going to be the humans "fault"... JMO...

Maelochs

it will happen in the present.

Mobile 155

I think a car building robot has already killed a VW worker. There is a report of it anyway on the web.

tandempower

My post was in response to others saying we should pre-pay funeral expenses before there are driverless cars on the roads, so my question was to them, i.e. when do they predict the first pedestrian/cyclist will be killed by a driverless vehicle, not whose fault will it be. This is a thread about predictions.

Maelochs

Nice theory but nobody ever said that.

Everything happens in the present except for things which happen in the imagination ... which don't happen, like the conversations you respond to sometimes.

tandempower

See posts #100 and #101

[/quote]Everything happens in the present except for things which happen in the imagination ... which don't happen, like the conversations you respond to sometimes. [/QUOTE]
Please don't insult me like this. I try to avoid getting lured into bickering.

Maelochs

Please don't insult me like this. I try to avoid getting lured into bickering.[/QUOTE] Don't blame me. You control youerrself. "he tempted me" is not a valid defense.


Nobody Ever Said That.


Let me take you through this step by step since sequential trains of logical thought aren’t your thing sometimes ..... Roody says he will wear a sensor to make himself safe, but only if he is paid to wear it and is guaranteed to get paid a lot more if it doesn’t work.

Do we agree?

I reply: So if the sensor fails and he get killed, his family will be glad for the insurance money. or if he gets killed because he is not wearing it, his family will be grateful for the funeral cash.

The point here .... I will go slowly .... He will only wear a sensor if he is guaranteed a salary and payoff in case of failure.

Otherwise he will not wear it.

He is saying that he thinks he might die, but won’t wear a sensor unless it comes with a paycheck and insurance. So what .... if he thinks he is going to die but won’t get paid ... he will just die/ But ... wouldn’t the sensor improve his odds? Wouldn’t he be safer with a sensor than without, even if it was not 100 percent guaranteed?

Replace “sensor” with “tail light” and you might grasp my point.

He wouldn’t dream of riding at night in traffic without a tail light, even though the sort of driver who might hit a cyclist at night would be the sort to overlook a tail light (obviously.) So ... why wear one? Because it ups the odds. Just like wearing a sensor would.

And the sensor might not have 100 -percent insurance ... the tail light has None ... yet he depends on it.

His “logic” is lacking ... sorely. He is the one who thinks AI cars are a threat, yet he is the one who refuses to take a safety measure unless compensated with cash. Seems pretty silly, doesn’t it? (Are you with me so far?)

To mock him, since he was apparently willing to choose what he sees as the real risk of death by AI car over wearing a sensor, I joked about the death he was imagining.

Clear?

I know there are a lot of ideas floating around there.

Notice .. NO ONE has mentioned pre-paying funeral expenses At All.

Notice also I am ridiculing the notion that AI cars are inherently dangerous and have been throughout the thread... I know, it is hard to read a whole page or even more ... but you apply yourself. You have capacities the like of which you cannot imagine.

Then Mobile155 posts: Notice Mobile 155 never says AI cars will kill anybody. Mobile 155 understands that this is all a joke on the irrational fear and the irrational response of Roody ... clear so far?

If you can read the thread (I know ... so many posts) you will also see that Mobile 155 is not opposed to AI cars. In fact, the one person who is opposed to AI cars, is Roody, who is also opposed to wearing or having in his bike a sensor to make his bike work better with the AI cars around him.

Still following? I know, irony and humor make things confusing.

Also, see posts #89 where cooker mentions that cyclists, dogs, and pedestrians might need to wear sensors which the AI vehicles can detect. Cooker is opposed to the idea.

Then read post #90 where I speak in favor of chips in bikes to work better with the AI system.

See the trend? Someone says AI is not safe, I joke “Yes, the cars will surely kill you,” someone else jokes that it is best to prepay .... and you cannot tell who means what because you would have to actually try to read and digest with an unbiased mind, many posts across many threads.

Since you choose not to make that effort, you make your misunderstanding plain to all ... and people take you even less seriously.

Please ... stop shooting yourself in the foot. Toes don’t regenerate.

Oh, and this .....

Don't blame me. if You cannot control yourself.

"He tempted me" is not a valid defense.

I just showed you where you responded to a conversation which never happened.

Besides that ... Everything happens in the present. It is Now, the only instant of which we are aware.

Even when I think of “then” I am doing it Now.

Got it?

Things you make up don’t happen Now because they don’t ever “happen.” When you say that people say we should all prepay for our funeral expenses because AI cars are going to kill us ... but As I Showed, No One Said That ...........

So ... it is not an “insult.” It is a Fact.

Don’t complain to me. Stick to facts and no one can successfully attack you. But when you force your meaning onto situations and then attack others for the things you invented ... yeah people might respond to that.

Look, I in no way dislike you, but you do say some silly things ... like trees are not affected by petroleum. There are a lot of dead trees across the Northeast and the Rust Belt which were killed by acid rain which cannot point out to you the folly of that statement ... because they were killed by petroleum.

If you take a little more time to think before you post ... and yes, I Will Also Take That Advice ... and I thank you for it .....

But seriously ... if you don’t understand what someone means, it is better to ask than decide. If you make a mistake and someone points it out, don’t consider it an insult, consider it a learning opportunity.

I will try to treat you better ... That I can do .... but you need to up your game. I cannot do that for you.

If you don’t want to bicker, do whatever else. I sometimes don’t come back for a few days so I don’t get too emotionally invested and say the kinds of things I have said in the past ... or that you sometimes say.

But don’t blame the world. Your job is to deal with the world. It is not for the rest of the world to adapt to you. Whatever else you take from your time here .... felling that everyone is out to get you is Not healthy. Sometimes life hurts, sometimes interacting with people hurts. Find what in you, you need to change so you are not vulnerable.

If some complete stranger at some random website, a person who you do not know and about whom you do not care, can get you upset .... maybe you want to change that?

Have a grand evening and a good night, or whatever it is you want or are supposed to have. I am late for my ride.

cooker

Funny, I got his point. AI/driverless cars are being "sold to us" as safer, but if the only way to make them safer is to force other road users to start wearing beacons, then perhaps they aren't such a boon after all. And if we are forced to pay extra to accommodate them, compared to what we pay now, that is us subsidizing the auto industry. The auto industry and its consumers should be the ones paying whatever it costs to mitigate any hazard they create when they put new technology on the road - not cyclists or pedestrians.

tandempower

Your explanation was actually quite clear. But since you mentioned the possibility of getting killed by driverless cars, I thought it would be relevant to ask for a prediction about when you expect the first death. Of course, this is not the predictions thread, so now I'm confused how this issue has ended up on both these threads.

I think it was Mobile155, but I can't remember exactly and I don't feel like going back and checking right now.

I just don't think I've done anything to warrant you condescending like this toward me. Did I insult you at some point in a way that earned me this tone of yours, or is it just your way of having fun when you write posts?

No, that isn't clear. It is another mention of death, and so why not ask the question when you predict the first pedestrian/cyclist death by driverless car will happen? I, personally, don't think the vehicles will be likely to fail in this way, but probably the fear will get overdramatized by people who want to protect jobs, etc. and then one day someone will get killed or injured because of something negligent, and it will get politicized.

Yes, they do. And people say things in ways that protect them from seeming biased when they are, like pretending to be in favor of something in order to sow seeds of fear and doubt. People have gotten very clever with this kind of thing in the internet age.

There's confusion about whether the sensors would be an extra safeguard or something required to protect people/pets from the vehicles. I think the vehicles will be good at avoiding living and non-living objects very well without having sensors to help them, but I can imagine that people might feel more comfortable with a sensor as an extra level of protection if the cost and inconvenience isn't great.

Don't you understand that people use humor and other subtle methods for saying things and then denying their true intent? Anyway, what does it matter? All I did was ask for predictions about when the first driverless car would kill someone outside a vehicle.

The problem is that there are people trying to wage a case against me to discredit me. Why else would you even think like this? Stop trying to discredit people and just talk with them.

And yet it is still wrong to tempt people. Don't play innocent by blaming others for reacting to you when you are manipulating reactions.

You are a mind-magician. It might boil down to being a clever liar, or at least twisting words to lie about lying while you lie using superficially true statements. Either way, you should be honest.

If you were a lawyer, you would get criminals off on technicalities.

I just see the hostility in your attitude and I think you should replace it with something less hostile.

What do you think would promote reforestation better? Eliminating petroleum and replacing all motor-vehicles with EVs or reducing the number of cars by 50%+ by people biking and walking instead of driving and parking?

That's not a bad idea, but I hope you realize that some people will try to bully you away with exactly this logic.

You should adopt the ethic of not seeking to hurt others. If you find something worth saying can't be said in a less hurtful way, you shouldn't self-censor, but you should try to say things in a non-hurtful way if possible. I admit I will kick back when kicked, but I try to turn the other cheek and I try to avoid pro-actively hurting others.

The human race can get me upset with its behavior, but that's just because I care about the consequences of what they/we do.

bicyclridr4life

I do not mean to be argumentative, but how is "NOT actually own the car they are using ..." different from today?
Most people over the last couple decades Lease "their" car. They do not own it.
I agree that a drivers license for a non-driverless car will become more difficult to obtain in the years to come. However, that is a minor point or concern. The insurance costs for a non-driverless car will be prohibitive for all but those who have a comperable income in that day above that of Bill Gates today.
Heck, by 2025 ~ 2030 non-driverless cars, trucks, and vans may be outlawed or prohibited on public roads. It is likely that driverless commercial vehicles will replace the commercial vehicles that are on our roads today. They may well have a "driver" but their responsibilities will be to make sure the load is properly secured, all the paperwork is in order, and putting fuel in the tanks; not actually driving.

Until the cost of private ownership of a vehicle becomes prohibitive for the "average working person" cars will always be most people's first choice in transportation.

cooker

It would be different in that they wouldn't possess and monopolize their cars, they would use and share independently owned cars, much like cabs and uber today. (If it happens).

DJH8098

https://www.bikerumor.com/2018/02/07...-see-cyclists/
Bikerumor did a nice article about the challenges AI cars face. This is worth the read.

350htrr

"The same problems exists with regular drivers who don't always react properly to seeing cyclists on the roads. (Not helped by some cyclists not obeying the rules of the road to start with)" Last paragraph in that article.