Daily reminder that the boys in San Fran are working hard night and day to make Self Driving Cars that'll take all of...

Your hobbies are not equal to the lives of tens of thousands of people, sorry. Also, your testing system falls short when even the most skilled driver will pale in comparison to a fully functional self driving car.

The ban is inevitable. If I were you, I'd downgrade your shitbox and save for something more worthwhile.

fuck you

America has fallen so far... I thought you guys valued freedom?

Freedom does not equal the right to endorse an activity that kills people.

self driving cars will never replace automibiles

public transit may be further developed, rendering cars useless in cities, but your pipe dream of self driving cars is many centuries away

>implying all the Cali dorks and silicon-heads in the world will be able to force 4,000lbs of Dearborn designed and Ontario manufactured pig iron and steel off the road

Like mining for rare earth minerals to make batteries for electric vehicles or phones?

Literally any activity can result in death.

Keep telling yourself that, petrolcuck.
Cite your sources. This is a common myth.

Where do they get the minerals then? Alchemy?

Okay? But name me other activities like driving that will result in the death of someone else not involved in the activity?

Driving is a privilege, not a right. And that privilege doesn't need to exist when there's a safer alternative.

The mining of the minerals is so much less polluting than what cars put out it's not even comparable. Keep deluding yourself, reality is going to come crashing down on you in your lifetime.

Mass transit is an option you fucking retard.

Educating people to use mass transit and building more of if is better than some fucking soyboy shit.

It's not really a privilege when cities are designed around having a car, and it's downright impossible to travel around the country without one.

Okay? Mass transit is an option but you're still putting people at risk by getting behind the wheel. You need to accept that you're a liability, and that the ethical solution is banning human driving. The fact you can't understand that drives the point home even more.
Okay? Same as above. Humans shouldn't be on the road when there's a better alternative.

Most people in cities don't need to own a car. And as with most things these days, rural people are going to need to adapt or be left behind.

Reminder that rural people put food on your fucking table.

That doesn't change the fact that they can be resistant to change.

Soyboys are already automating farming. Its already heavily reliant on mechanization now automation is next. Bar some sort of revolution where farmers stop giving into the john deere jew and re-learn how to farm without all of the mechanized bullshit and chemicals

Daily reminder that the future also belongs to the people you call "soyboys".

gr8 b8 m8

Soyboys dont dominate shit your jewish masters will throw your asses to the curb just like all of the factory workers and automate the very job you had to program it

Anti-semetic vitriol is all you have? No arguments? I'm glad you'll be off the road.

You wont be able to compete with programming written by AI what makes you think youre any special than the people made redundant by technology?

This conversation is about how human driving will be banned, not about my job. If you can't read, how can you be trusted to drive on the road? Every time you fuck up, you make it all the more obvious why we need self driving cars.

I understood that reference

It's either cars or public transport. Self-driving cars are a shitty compromise that's worst of both worlds.

>Can't even ban guns
>think you'll ban cars
Maybe in some communist states like NY or CA.

Here is my thing with driverless cars..
Planes can take off, fly and land themselves, they are even statistically less likely to crash if you removed the pilot.

but would you get in a plane that had no pilot?

That's actually exactly what it means, which is why you can hop on Veeky Forums and post about how you wish you could join ISIS and kill Americans. You must be European your entire continent worth of Social Democracy's are an affront to the liberal movement that birthed them.

American actually. And you can claim what you want, but your selfish attitude is exactly why the sooner you're off the road the better. Case and point:
You're not a trained pilot, you just took a test anyone functional enough could get. False equivalency.
Guns are a right. Driving on public roads is a privilege. False equivalency.

fullu autonomous is still a long long long ways away.

We're still at the point where if the car cant figure out what to do, it throws its proverbial hands up in the air and kicks control back to human hands.

There are so many weird kinks and issues to be sorted through its hilarious to think that autonomous cars are going to be common place any time soon.

Heck, you want to make sure someone's autonomous car never moves? Paint a double-yellow line around it. Current cars dont know what to do. Theyre just now trying to figure out what animals can be safely hit and what ones should be avoided.

>runs over your Self-Piloting SafeSpace™
heh.. nothin personnel

lmao @ your life OP

medium.com/@pablocp/san-francisco-the-third-world-city-in-a-first-world-country-12f9a2e7bb8

Anyone here ever used GPS?
If you can't even send me within a quarter mile of the address i poke in, how are you going to drive me there?

>tfw live in a shithole
>never have to worry about self driving cars in my lifetime
OP BTFO as usual

>Fury Road is actually a "What if?" by SJWs in the future
>When Veeky Forumstists are all driving Muh V8s, LS swapped miatas, muscle cars, lifted brodozers
>Buzzcut feminists actually 10x fatter than hollyweird portrayal
>Feminists also lose* IRL
>Pic of big red rig, shiny and chrome

Congestion is caused by poor road design and trying to fit too many cars into too tight a space. Its like trying to suck water though a straw vs chugging it, chugging is always faster. You can make the congestion less viscous by having the cars communicate, but there will always be limits because some cars will always need to change lanes.

However, I do agree with you about the need for multi tier licensing. There should be separate tiers for self-driving cars (especially early on where you'll probably have to park it manually), manually operated with the car seizing control to prevent collisions, and fully manual.

Ideally theyll also allow cheap lightweight deathtraps that will squish easily to protect the other cars that won't accidentally hit them back on the road, but I doubt that unless the entire fiat currency sceme is destroyed anyone will be able to afford to build anything for a niche market by then.

It literally does. I endorse gun ownership and self defense with lethal force if endangered by lethal force, and so do the laws of my state and country. Now watch as nothing happens to me except maybe people reply to this post if they feel like it. Thats freedom. Don't try to destroy it, or you may find talking about something you like or beileve in lands you in jail.

And to add to my earlier post, I do think that with multi teir licenses, the manual car with active collision avoidance should be the license you get for passing a test a little bit harder than the one you take today.

Those tens of thousands of people will now live full lives to contaminate the gene pool further with their retard genes.

Driving your car isn't a freedom, it's a privilege. The roads were built by the state for the purpose of helping business, not to be your personal track to joyride on.
Car culture will die once SDCs become the norm. There'll be stragglers who resist change, but that's why it'll be outlawed.
You all just don't get it. Self driving cars only need to be better than human drivers, Once that happens, there won't be any need for a tier system because even the best human drivers will be shit compared to a self driving system.

This is ignoring the infrastructure that will come about because of self driving cars. You can be as good a driver as you like, but once a majority of cars no longer need stoplights, you're not going to be allowed on the road purely because it won't support you anymore.

It's attitudes like this that only prove my point. Why should you be allowed on the road with an attitude like that? Once you're off the road, everyone will be safer.

>Ethics
>mfw

This doesn't make a difference. Once SDCs become the norm, no one is going to own a car, because most of it is going to be a service like UBER.

Worry or don't worry, your hobby is dead.

Because I'm fully capable of driving without going on my fucking phone and killing innocent people around me due to my own stupidity.

And Self Driving Cars will be better than you even if you were fully aware of the road. Your stupidity of choosing to drive with your own hands is what's going to put people at risk in the future.

Doesn't matter. SDCs can only function perfectly once every unit on the road is connected to the grid and knows exactly what every other unit is going to do, your relic is unpredictable and therefore a liability.

What are you even doing here?

Utilitarianism is about as bad a cancer as connunism.

What’s connuinism?

And out come the non-arguments.
You've lost. Your hobby is dying, and it's for the best of everyone.

I like high technology cars, and I'm just explaining why they'll be the norm in the future. I want to see a convincing argument to the contrary, but there hasn't even been one. Which should signal to everyone how the future will turn out.

>I want to see a convincing argument to the contrary, but there hasn't even been one.
It's very simple: there is objectively no argument against full automation.
No more congestion, no more unnecessary traffic deaths, time spent commuting can be used for productive things instead. Who cares if a bunch of freaks stuck in the 1980s lose the ability to play with their manchild toys if it benefits literally everyone?

>And Self Driving Cars will be better than you even if you were fully aware of the road. Your stupidity of choosing to drive with your own hands is what's going to put people at risk in the future.

The crashes that self-driving cars have had, in many cases would have been avoided by a competent human driver. IIRC one hit wildlife that ran into the road.

I am not willing to find out if my steering-wheel-less car has a protocol (as programmed by a San Francisco millennial who rides a train from his apartment to his job) to avoid a moose, or XYZ road event - or if I get a front row seat to my own death WITHOUT the ability to do something about it. No fucking thank you.

Next - if my self-driving car has a choice of going around improperly marked road construction to the left and into on-coming traffic, or to the right and up over a curb possibly hitting someone - will the car prioritize MY life, or the pedestrian?

It's literally a life and death choice for ME, that I do not want made for me, so that my body can lay at the feet of someone's worldview so they can feel like "mmm'progress"

TLDR: Some people can't seem to drive or figure out how not to drink or drive, don't take away MY fuckin choices because of those idiots.

Yeah but, some 19 year old autist is claiming "current year", all cars will be self driving vs having an auto-pilot option FIRST.
Because, reasons.

BTW here's the self-driving bus, crashing into a truck that would have been avoided by a 17 year old teenager. "Well the truck wasn't supposed to be there and-"
Lots of shit that's not supposed to happen on the roads, does. All, the fucking, time.
It will always be this way, the world is not a test tube.

People give machines and robots a pass when evaluating their performance vs humans, and overlook the flaws. The people who bow at the feet of anything new always seem overlook this kinda stuff "I haven't seen a convincing argument for-" (Translation: they haven't looked for it, like their version, and are lazily dismissing yours).

We often forget to penalize machines for blue-screening and shutting down. If a human blue screens we see the error and categorize it (an accident). A machine blue screens or commits and error, and out comes the excuse making by those emotionally driven by their technophilia.

Reality check: The first multi-million dollar lawsuits concerning self-driving cars getting in major accidents are going to change the game.
We will see the acceptance of "auto-pilot" and a slow ramp up, vs total replacement by SDCs outside of smaller applications in predictable cities (Replacing taxis/uber etc).

50 deaths from malfunction > 10,000 deaths from Human Driving.

Hmm...I wonder which one's better user?

>Removing people's freedom to choose on a theory that won't work for all people to begin with due to things that totally elude them
>"No big deal"
>Dictatorlet spotted

Read Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Society

Power can be concentrated, knowledge is diffused. Self-driving cars are not going to work for a fuckton of drivers, in the US and abroad.

Which drivers won't they work for? I hear the rural-driver argument all the time, but rural people should be making the move to the city anyways. By the time SDCs are common, they will have either gotten with the program or sunk into poverty, either way, it's a non-issue.
It doesn't matter how "shitty" they are, they only need to be better than humans, and a few minor crashes is nothing compared to the progress that'll be coming in the next ten or so years.
Again, driving isn't a freedom, it's a privilege.

>I want to go to the store!
>Open your uber app
>Nearest car 55 minutes away, also it's a high demand hour so charges are tripled, and you have to pay for the car to come up you up
>Sick freedom!

There will be so many self driving cars on the road that the wait will only be about ten minutes. Also the cost of calling a SDC uber-like vehicle will be minuscule compared to owning a cat.

Next.

>Again, driving isn't a freedom, it's a privilege
Goodluck telling that to voters.

>It doesn't matter how "shitty" they are, they only need to be better than humans, and a few minor crashes is nothing compared to the progress that'll be coming in the next ten or so years.
"10 or so". Auto-pilot can have uses, SDCs are a joke.
>I like high technology cars, and I'm just explaining why they'll be the norm in the future. I want to see a convincing argument to the contrary, but there hasn't even been one. Which should signal to everyone how the future will turn out.

The fact that you haven't really thought it through doesn't mean anyone else is wrong. Grab a glass of ice water. 1 second.

1 of 2
First your assumption/fantasy is based on either
1) Government gunpoint, (goodluck getting enough politicians to support it) the only surefire way to get your unproven "made sense in my head" pipedream
>Buy the SDC, bigot
Which makes the totalitarian insults spot on.
"Well I say it'll be the greater good" is literally how despots rule and rationalized the biggest government mistakes in history.

2) A freemarket and people have to CHOOSE SDCs to the point that they phase out being able to drive, which is what you're directly implying, and if you backpedal into "nuh uh"-land, that's on you.
Not my job to read your mind, it's your job to articulate your thoughts, mr."everyone else is a brainlet, I know the future"

So in this market where people are choosing SDCs or not, you have people who do not desire them.
You're a technophile, a lover of all things current year, but many people won't be down with this.
You're looking at a board of driving enthusiasts who are telling you why, and you're saying "nuh uh" as if it makes you the smart one.
^ that is market data.
You are predicting those market tastes won't exist, because
>Reasons

"Sounds good to you" does not convince people to give up their freedom.
The posters, in this thread, having to convince YOU? HA!
Sorry kiddo, you're the one with a worldview you're not proving

2 of 3
Your fantasy is built on the idea of: If a computer literally shuffled everyone around for them without their input whatsoever, only a couple people would die in accidents, and you know this because
>reasons
^ That's a strawman fantasy.
Zero: The technology still has problems reading obstacles in the road. Without that, SDC is a pipedream.
>Technology will definitely solve it-
You don't know that. I'd agree with you it is possible, I'm going to put it at 51% probably "eventually".
But to assume it as a given is a leap, a literal leap.

One: First you're not getting the "old" cars off the road probably for 50 years, starting from the introduction of actual SDCs, which we haven't even seen yet
>But muh crystal ball, lemme talk down to Veeky Forums
Next market realities are a factor, unless you're suggesting government bans anything not SDC
>Not tyranny cause my utopia
Next the technology will likely take longer time to mature AND get cost effective than the cuck-bloggers want to admit.
Next it has to go smoothly, a few big fuckups or drawbacks will set it back a long time. A few people watch their own deaths in a car with no steering wheel, and get it released on liveleak and oh boy. People who want cars have to buy them, vs kids riding buses who don't own a car but do write for a blog.
Next it has to work for almost ALL buyers, when in reality it seems to work best for city buyers - the more "into the wilderness" (much of the US, much of the world), the more "out of reception" range you get, the more problems there are. Those people won't desire an SDC. Their destination(s) can't be programmed in, and/or they straight up don't want to.
I have to wait 3 hours for a self driving carlet to take me offroading? You were pitching that with some sort of seriousness?

someone has to buy that little shitbox first off. Someone has to WANT to buy it, or I assume all cars are now fleet sales to uber because
>reasons
>sounds good in my head
Oh gotcha.

3 of 4
Next the SDCs themselves have to be desirable vs a mature set of market offerings. We are assuming it will be a 100% totally easy integration that won't make it look like
Look at this thing attached. Look at it. I don't want that car. This board doesn't want that car, nor do they consider "Muh SDC" to be a major selling point.
>Some people will
Yes, like you. Or cityfolk.

The whole market, I'm actually going to state "no." We were raised in an area with free-driving cars, we will want them until we die.
The whole market, will NEVER want SDCs, (Not being able to get to work because "the network is down" , fuck off with that noise) the only way to get that is with government gunpoint.
Can't offroad a self-driving car. And whether or not people use their trucks/SUVs for it, they buy it with that in mind.
They absolutely do. They want to drive their own truck on their own multi-acre property (which again you know that because you thought it through right..) without clicking keys to do it.
They are not going to lose the tongue for that because some pencilneck in an office has a worldview.
You can't drive it around a track, you won't be doing spirited drives fuckin anywhere, and this is not an insignificant portion of the market - as long as it exists someone will sell cars to them.
As long as they're allowed, of course. (government gunpoint again required to arrive to this "final driving solution")
So you can't sell to farmers, enthusiasts, people with large properties, people who WANT to drive, people who don't want that goofy looking shitbox,

People, do not, want, to give up their freedom.
People do not want to give up their freedom, to make some dumbass in a far away office who does not know what they do or do not want to do with their vehicles, happy.
(This alone is checkmate, I'm being repetitive to drill it into your head on the assumption that you're skimming)

4 of 4

Next, this fantasy is based entirely on:
>But muh safety.
and what happens if people stop wearing seatbelts?
>They won't have accidents be-
And we have real world trials of self driving cars, in realistic ACTUAL driving, and there were no accidents?

No, we don't have anything approaching real trials, so to make grand pronouncements about their safety is something that just literally "sounds good" in your head dude.
That's literally it.
It "Seems logical", and you're saying society is going to re-arrange itself on the basis of, "but it seems logical".
Yeah, I think that's more involved than that.

I've given you many reasons there are buyers who don't want this. It is up to YOU, and those like you, to convince people to give up their freedom to get your vision, and that's a very hard sell that you're taking for granted.
It's assumptuous, and arrogant, because this board alone is proof that there are people who will never want to.

Sorry, I just don't see autonomous cars working out. I think it might end up being another wild idea similar to flying/hovering cars that end up never seeing the light of day within our society.

But what do I know, this idea might actually end up being successful in the next 20 - 40 years or so.

sage grows in all fields

You have to convince people to give up their freedom, and it's a tough sell.
People still smoke, knowing it will kill them.

Most of the people who would "benefit" most from the self driving cars, already don't have them.

Due to the momentum of people being able to own their own cars and visualizing it as something they desire? Very hard sell to give that up.

How many guys think of themselves as car guys (true or not, skill or not is the question). How many drivers view themselves, as driving enthusiasts?
The kid in the honda with the fart can? He sure does.
The old boomer with mm'V8 that can't corner? He is.
The kid with a beat to shit Ford pickup that he loves? He's a truck guy.

Whether they offroad or not, race or not, drive on tracks or don't - they're buying the idea of it, they're buying the dream of it. (Just as those who are counting on self driving cars are buying into that idea as "mm'future").
IT's what marketers are trying to sell.

Yes, they just want your dollars in exchange for a car of: who fuckin knows how good it really is or isn't at whatever they're marketing. But as long as a guy believes he can buy Offroader9000: Deluxe edition, he will want to choose that over Econobox-Youdon't drive.
This ^ market is significant.

And you can damn well bet those car companies will pay a lot in lobbying dollars to keep it that way too.

SDCs will likely exist, but a replacement?
That idea is more far fetched the longer you think about it.

"Next".

so we're taking women off the roads
excellent

Techies should be hanging from every streetlamp, but alas America is happy to be cucked more and more as time progresses.

>Feels Breddy Guud :DDD

SDC guy had a point. Get the drunks, the old, and the women off the road, now I see some value in SDC. So the actual drivers can go back to wrapping themselves around telephone poles at 3am vs getting hit by some roastie on her goddamn phone

a true Chad end vs "but muh 1 more beer"

This is literally all "reasons"

90% of millenials would prefer self driving vehicles. That's part of an official study.

Save your wall of text for something more relevant to the conversation. Next.

I agree with this

I drive a snowplow in Montana. What it a self driving plow going to do when it needs to get out and clean snow from it's camera lenses cause the wiper that's suppose to keep it clean froze over. Or when it can't see the road. Or starts following tire tracks because it thinks they are Lane lines. Gps alone can't keep a car on the road and the tech to read and handle road conditions in mountains in the winter isn't ready. I'm confident that my job will be around for ten plus years

Nope and nope.

>This is called experience, it is called consequential knowledge. As in, a policymaker or leader not knowing this, has consequences

A 20 year old college intern sitting in an office with a blog, or their "Never had a real job at all" academic equivalent, who was once like them but locked into the ivory tower groupthink, does not know about this. They don't know, that they don't even know about this. The world's greatest mistakes are usually built on decision making components like this.

>Someone told them they were smart here and there, they read this thing, this one time.
>Reality is right in front of them, but they act as if the world has something to prove to THEM, why their utopia won't happen

Destroyed NEET won't respond to this, he'll say "NEXT" while hobbling around his crutches.

>That's part of an official study.
As you get older (and if you are surprisingly older, "get more mature"), you'll find out that
>muh studies
Are often designed for an outcome, an outcome that benefits the person who asked for that particular study to be done.

Ex: The Polls showing Hillary clinton +12 and +14 in an election she eventually lost.

>Muh 90%, that one study that one time
In business school there's a truism, 20% of "Might buys" are actually interested, 80% of "will definitely buys" end up showing up.
Showing favorability to one idea becomes different once the realities of that idea show up.

Fleet sales only of SDCs, because Uber and muh cities, you've given a thoroughly unconvincing case with no data. You're sperging out about
>Next
As if the world operates on your worldview, it does not.

With no answer about enthusisasts and the several other reasons that people are trying to get through your head, we'll be taking the victory points here.
>But, but muh next
Better luck next time man.
Come back with actual answers and knowledge vs 1 word and a dream.

Mining, yes.
Refining and processing, not so much.
2/10 bait, got me to reply

Let's not forget the obvious here- What if the tech fails. You could be stranded or worse, get into an accident.

That's why car manufacturers need to have failsafes. It's why most preexisting self-driving cars are just retrofits of normal cars right now.

Underrated post

>that'll take all of you off the road for good.
i am prepared

>Advertising an electric car with a rocket, which is a huge combustion engine.

What did Elon musk mean by this?

Nah people will simply not want cars, and the market for people who actually want cars will go away - because, uber and this one advocacy group poll.

>Self Driving Cars that'll take all of you off the road for good
That's because they will ram you under a semi at 100mph for the lulz.

...

next

The fact that California is getting rid of the familiar Bott's dots partly because of self-driving cars means they will be absolutely fucked if they go into construction zones or anywhere that the stripes are less than perfect.

see that mass congregationnof shit... thats all the fucking faggot homos in the tenderloin.

>Boys
>SF
>Working hard

Haha, no

The ethical answer is to limit everyone's freedom so they can't hurt themselves... Yes, that sounds very ethical.