Safe Streets Rebel’s protest comes after automatic vehicles were blamed for incidents including crashing into a bus and running over a dog. City officials in June said…

  • moss@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I live in the area and the streets are just clogged with these fucking autonomous cars. Traffic is slower, people end up having to swerve, it’s just a constant persistent headache. If I had it my way, they’d all be off the streets and into the crusher

      • howrar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can we instead have self driving buses?

        I’m envisioning a system where you tell it your location and where you want to go, then it automatically sets up a route for the bus that coincides with where most people want to go and tells you to get off when it’s near your destination. This can work in conjunction with self driving taxis if no one else is going to your destination.

        • Kuinox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe minibus but in no way it will works with full sized bus.
          The ideal bus to commute is a bus line with frequent bus, you don’t have to check the time, just show up and in a few minutes there is a bus.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re not gonna get self-driving buses without self-driving cars first, so this protest is directly fucking you out of what you want

        • GladiusB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem is no one will use them. Busses are full of homeless people and people that NEED to use them than they want to. I was a bus driver for many years. They don’t stop where everyone wants to go and it’s a necessity to most instead of an integrated way of life. The entire American culture would need to change.

            • GladiusB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              For sure. However do you change something that is mostly government subsidized and everyone that manages the systems are happy with the operations?

              • Spzi@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                everyone that manages the systems are happy with the operations?

                Is that the case? I suppose most car drivers are not happy with sitting in traffic jams. Better public transport would help.

          • howrar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t know how it is in the US, but i can tell you that public transit is pretty good here in my city. A self-driving taxi would still be the ideal experience for sure, but taking a bus isn’t that much worse, and it’s definitely better than driving myself.

          • xSPYXEx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            That literally just proves that we do in fact need more busses. More vehicles would allow for a wider coverage with more frequent and well organized stops.

            • GladiusB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I like your idea, but implementing it is a bigger issue than you may realize. The transit systems in San Francisco are based on counties. Therefore it is a completely different governing body for each way out of the city proper.

              But coverage does not change the usage. That is several millions if not billions to reroute a busline to go to a different area. If only 10 people get on every two hours then another bus in a more populated area is more financially sound. We can sit and say more buses are the answer, but people being willing to get on to the bus is a part of the equation. I don’t see how you are going to eliminate 2 extra hours out of everyone’s commute and make them buy into it.

          • Spzi@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Busses are full of homeless people and people that NEED to use them than they want to.

            I heard this is the case in the United States. In Europe, as far as I can tell, it’s more common that people from all backgrounds take public transit, including ‘higher’ class people. Of course exceptions and reasons exist.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Public transit is better, but self-driving taxis are absolutely coming to every city in this country, which is great if you live in a city like mine that has little to no public transport infrastructure.

        Also, automated taxis can service more rural areas, which is the key driver of lack of public transport in many “commuter cities.”

        Luddites gonna Luddite, but this tech is coming, and it’s coming to logistics and taxis first.

          • GladiusB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I can tell you aren’t from SF. Because no one from here calls it SanFran. But I digress. Uber is huge here because it is where it started. And buses come with other baggage. Many homeless people and plenty of pervs doing shady things deter people from using the system regularly. Having seen the system it is substantial, but getting out of the city is the issue. San Francisco proper is very small 7x7 miles (49 square miles, Easter egg from being 1849 and the 49ers). But going anywhere outside of the city is where things take forever and why most affluent people do not use those systems. 2 hours back and forth is not economic on time.

            • dustojnikhummer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, I’m not. Homeless on our public transit isn’t an issue because our police actually responds to driver calls.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I am well aware of both the benefits of public transport and this image specifically. This is irrelevant to our discussion

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Self driving taxis aren’t stupid. They better fit the existing infrastructure within America.

                Taxis as a whole generally serve a different market function than public transportation in the US.

                Im all for gutting zoning, and building dense, walkable cities, full of public transportation free at POS - but that’s not the world we live in.

                Self-driving taxis are such a massive net boon for people that it’s not even a comparison to the alternative

                • dustojnikhummer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  On that I will agree, but I still stand that self driving taxis are stupid. BUT, they are necessary due to how NA cities are built, and getting rid of them would require many other changes as well

    • DrM@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was in SF 4 years ago and it was insane how many self-driving cars were on the streets for tests. Especially on Lombard Street they just drove in circles. I can’t imagine how annoying this is for someone who lives there

    • LightDelaBlue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      but they say automatic car is the future! (with more lanes) and due to a computer driving its faster! s/

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      When a for profit company is deciding how much time/energy/funds they want to invest in pedestrian safety, you get LOUD and you stay that way forever.

      Your comment is blind to the reality we live in and the broken, out of touch people deciding if human lives are a businesses priority, and at what percentages, as these types of vehicles scale.

      When humans get in an accident, there were choices/mistakes made, but there are things we can understand in certain situations and find closure often. When elon’s failed experiment decapitates your grandmother by driving her under a semi and sheering off the top off the car, you’ll probably never settle with that image as long as you live - and you’ll see elon in the news each day being a tool and never seeing justice for that moment.

      There’s a difference with distinction in this conversation.

      • Event_Horizon@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a really good point.

        Imagine your dog gets run over, you rush them to the vet but ultimately they die and your thousands out of pocket. You call the corporate helpdesk to log a claim because there isn’t anyone else to contact, they offer you $300 in credit for immediate resolution or you can dispute. You become upset because your dog was more than a credit refund, the call centre drone says that you’ve become aggressive, that you can call back during business hours and hangs up.

        What a hell scape.

        • regeya@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “But who do I sue” is also why it took so long for Linux to catch on.

          But who do I sue. I hate America so much sometimes.

      • catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh ok I didn’t realize a person’s life was worth less of they’re killed by the mistake of another person instead of the mistake of a computer. Since it’ll be easier for their loved ones to blame a person and just get over it then that’s better. Thanks for explaining that!

    • Kausta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Comparing these two requires the number of cars with human drivers and the amount of time humans spend driving per year versus the number of autonomous vehicles and the amount of time they spend driving per year. I am not saying that you are wrong, I am just saying that comparing these numbers directly is like comparing apples with oranges.

      • catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree completely. My original post was just a stupid meme. I don’t really think putting cones on the hoods of the cars is helping and that it’s kind of dumb to do that and act smug about it. I’d rather people were sueing or something. I’m sure there is precedent for stopping manufacturers from making their vehicles more dangerous just to save a small percentage of money. I guess we do live in a capitalist utopia though so maybe I’m wrong but it seems like court might be more effective than trying to make these cars even more dangerous by adding a cone to the hood.

    • randon31415@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      DARPA figures out how to safely drive cars using LIDAR. Musk asked for a self driving car. Engineers come back the LIDAR solution. Musk fires them, says if humans can drive with two eyes, then so can computers. Cameras are cheaper than LIDAR. Second group tries it with cameras, can’t get it to work, asked why they can’t use LIDAR. Second group of engineers is fired. Third group comes up with something that ‘kind of works’. People die. Big companies avoid self driving altogether, even though we have a perfect solution with LIDAR, all because Musk wanted to save a buck and can’t get out of the way of his engineers.

      • Yendor@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve worked on serious projects involving LiDAR. The LiDAR you need at these speeds and with this resolution cost almost as much as an Electric Car - it’s too expensive to reach wide adoption. But video processing with CNNs/RNNs has proven you can build the same level of data with cameras. You don’t even need binocular cameras now - if objects are moving you can generate binocular data by combining IMU data with time-series imagery.

        As I understand it, Tesla’s delays aren’t related to image capture (which is where LiDAR could help). They’re related to trying to find universal actions to take against an almost infinite number of possible scenarios (mostly actions by human drivers).

    • pickle_party247@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      the real funny here is how the USA has the most lax driving test standards in the developed world resulting in crazy amounts of road traffic accidents and really high mortality rates, but instead of dealing with shitty driving at the source there’s a billion dollar industry in autonomous driving.

      • Clown_Tempura@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exploitation is the American way, bro. Create problems where there are none, offer a solution, profit.

    • over_clox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You make it sound like it’s a 50/50 split between human drivers and autonomous vehicles, which is definitely not the case.

      There are way more human drivers than autonomous vehicles. So, when an autonomous vehicle runs your child or pet over or whatever, who do you blame? The company? The programmers? The DMV for even allowing them on the road in the first place?

      What’s an autonomous vehicle do if it gets a flat? Park in the middle of the interstate like an idiot instead of pulling over and phone home for a mechanic?

      • donalonzo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You need to first ask yourself if it more important to put blame than to minimize risk.

        “Autonomous vehicles could potentially reduce traffic fatalities by up to 90%.”

        “Autonomous vehicle accidents have been recorded at a slightly lower rate compared with conventional cars, at 4.7 accidents per million miles driven.”

        https://blog.gitnux.com/driverless-car-accident-statistics/

        • HedonismB0t@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That opinion puts a lot of blind faith in the companies developing self driving and their infinitely altruistic motives.

          • biddy@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That wasn’t an opinion, it’s a statistic.

            No (large public) company ever has altruistic motives. They aren’t inherently good or bad, just machines driven by profit.

          • IntoDaLagoon@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            What do you mean, I’m sure the industry whose standard practices include having the self-driving function turn itself off nanoseconds before a crash to avoid liability is totally motivated to spend the time and money it would take to fix the problem. After all, we live in a time of such advanced AI that all the news sites and magazines tell me we’re on the verge of the Singularity, and they’ve never misled me before.

            • Red Wizard 🪄@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I feel like I’m taking crazy pills because no on seems to know or give a shit that Tesla was caught red handed doing this. They effectively murdered those drivers.

            • rtxn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s not a strawman argument, it is a fact. Without the ability to audit the entire codebase of self-driving cars, there’s no way to know if the manufacturer had knowingly hidden something in the code that might have caused accidents and fatalities too numerous to recount, but too important to ignore, that were linked to a fault in self-driving technology.

              I was actually trying to find an article I’d read about Tesla’s self-driving software reverting to manual control moments before impact, but I was literally flooded by fatality reports.

              • kep@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Strawman arguments can be factual. The entire point is that you’re responding to something that wasn’t the argument. You’re putting words in their mouth to defeat them instead of addressing their words at face value. It is the definition of a strawman argument.

              • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                We can’t audit the code for humans, but we still let them drive.

                If the output for computers driving is less than for humans and the computer designers are forced to be as financially liable for car crashes as humans, why shouldn’t we let computers drive?

                • rambaroo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Because there’s no valid excuse to prevent us from auditing their software and it could save lives. Why the hell should we allow then to use the road if they won’t even let us inspect the engine?

                  A car isn’t a human. It’s a machine, and it can and should be inspected. Anything less than that is pure recklessness.

                • Shayreelz@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not fully in either camp in this debate, but fwiw, the humans we let drive generally suffer consequences if there is an accident due to their own negligence

              • donalonzo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It is most definitely a strawman to frame my comment as considering the companies “infinitely altruistic”, no matter what lies behind the strawman. It doesn’t refute my statistics but rather tries to make me look like I make an extremely silly argument I’m not making, which is the defintion of a strawman argument.

                • rambaroo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The data you cited comes straight from manufacturers, who’ve repeatedly been shown to lie and cherry-pick their data to intentionally mislead people about driverless car safety.

                  So no it’s not a straw man argument at all to claim that you’re putting inordinate faith in manufacturers, because that’s exactly what you did. It’s actually incredible to me how many of you are so irresponsible that you’re not even willing to do basic cross-checking against an industry that is known for blatantly lying about safety issues.

              • vinnymac@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It may be the case that every line of code of all self driving vehicles is not available for a public audit. But neither is the instruction set of every human who was taught to drive properly on the road today.

                I would hope that through protesting and new legislation, that we will see the industry become more safe over time. Which we simply will never be able to achieve with human drivers.

          • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            You don’t need to put faith into companies beyond the faith that is put into humans. Make companies just as financially liable as humans are, and you’ll still see a decrease in accidents.

            • xavier666@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You mean those companies who will lobby and spend a fraction of their wealth to make those lawsuits disappear?

        • kewjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          are there actual datasets to look at and info regarding how data was collected? all the sources on that page are just domain links but don’t appear to point to the data making the claims?

          4.7 accidents per million miles doesn’t mean much if the cars are limited to specific roads or include test tracks that give them an advantage. the degree of variance in different environments would also need to be measured such as weather effects, road conditions and traffic patterns.

          I’m all for autonomous driving, but its not like companies don’t fudge numbers all the time for their benefit.

        • over_clox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Story time…

          I once had a crazy accident driving only like 15-20 MPH or so down a side road, then about 20 feet in front of me some idiot backed out of his parking spot right in front of me.

          Broad daylight, overcast skies, no other vehicles blocking his view even. Dude just backed up without looking like a freaking idiot.

          I responded in a split second. I did not hit the brakes, as I knew I didn’t have enough time or distance to stop. If I had hit the brakes, his car would have had more time to back out further and I would have smacked straight on into the passenger side of his car.

          Instead of hitting the brakes, I quickly jerked the steering wheel hard and fast to the left. See, I knew an impact was inevitable at that point, I made that move to clip his bumper instead of smacking into the passenger side and ruining both vehicles.

          Would an AI do that? 🤔

            • over_clox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They tend to work on basic sensors and simplified logic. They don’t tend to consider forward momentum and a vehicle pulling out perpendicular in front of you.

              I believe half the programmers of autonomous vehicles never even drove a vehicle in their life.

        • over_clox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          So…

          Your car is at fault. Their kid is dead.

          Who pays for the funeral?

          Does your insurance cover programming glitches?

          • CoderKat@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, why shouldn’t it? Is a programming glitch in a self driving all that different from a mechanical issue in a manually driven car?

            • over_clox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              AI driven cars are just as prone to mechanical issues as well. Is AI smart enough to deal with a flat tire? Will it pull over to the side of the road before phoning in for a mechanic, or will it just ignorantly hard stop right in the middle of the interstate?

              What’s AI do when there’s a police officer directing traffic around an accident or through a faulty red light intersection? I’ve literally seen videos on that before, AI couldn’t give two shits about a cop’s orders as to which way to drive the vehicle.

    • bighi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      90 accidents a year is a LOT, if you stop to think that there are like only a few dozens of them out there, versus more than a hundred million human drivers.

    • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Did you read the article? The protests are in favour of affordable public transit, instead of using ‘surveillance pods’ as a way to build even MORE roads. The accidents are probably the least of their concerns, although still on the list

    • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They stop for no reason, cause gridlocks that require a human to comd out to it and pilot it, they’ve run over fire hoses being used and don’t always get out of the way for emergency service vehicles. Nice statistic though.

        • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If sarcasm could make the cars drive better I’d send you right out, but maybe you should leave the issue to people who at least understand the actual problem.

            • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Im literally telling you what they say in the articles about why they’re doing this and all you guys wanna do is joke and pretend theres no issues with an unproved technology because you saw some statistics about it. So compared to the other commenters in this chain Im Secretary Butigege.

    • lobut@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, there’s probably millions of drivers performing more driving and less than that of autonomous vehicles.

      I personally can’t wait for autonomous vehicles to take over but the argument would be clearer with percentages and stuff.

  • Chipthemonk@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The interviewed protesters sound a little whacky. Maybe the cars are doing surveillance with the police, but that idea seems far fetched and unrealistic. Maybe I’m wrong.

    I agree with more public transportation, bikes, and so forth, but I also agree with self driving cars. I dream of a future in which all cars are driven automatically without human drivers. Humans are very fallible and we all know, in almost every city, how many shitty drivers there are. Autonomous vehicles could fix this.

    • firadin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe the cars are doing surveillance with the police, but that idea seems far fetched and unrealistic

      I’m sure that’s what people said about Ring, or Facebook messages being used to arrest women for abortions. Why would a company turn down an extra revenue stream (or subpoena)?

      • damnYouSun@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Facebook messages being used to arrest women for abortions.

        That’s a misrepresentation of what happened. The police already suspected her, and so they requested the information from Facebook. Facebook didn’t voluntarily supply a bunch of data to the police for no reason, and then the police didn’t comb through all the data to find this one crime that they otherwise didn’t know about.

        What is being suggested with the automatic cars is that the police are actively monitoring the surveillance footage looking for criminal activity. They definitely won’t be doing that. It’s way to much like work.

    • FluffyPotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Cars are incredibly inefficient at transporting people though, like you need a massive highway to transport the amount of people a train can transport, not to mention how much higher maintenance roads are compared to train tracks.

      • lemmycolon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cars are incredibly inefficient at transporting groups of people long distances

        FTFY

        I’d love a legit train system to take me to locations across the state or country. But for running errands or local, day-to-day tasks, trains aren’t the answer.

      • mouth_brood@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If all cars became autonomous there would no longer be traffic, it’d be similar to train cars in that they are linked together with no disruption in progress due to other cars/drivers.

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a concern about more cameras recording all the time, and while I don’t personally buy that argument (because being out in public means you don’t have any expectation of privacy) I don’t agree with these companies storing that data to give to police, effectively making Waymo or Cruise into private arms of law enforcement.

      The reason that makes the most sense to me is it still encourages cities to be designed around cars, and not transit or people-oriented methods of travel. Even though they might make travel smoother by better decision-making than people, I’d still rather see more spaces devoted to foot traffic connected by buses or trains than the sprawl necessitated by personal vehicles.

      • nivenkos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I bet you own a car though.

        Cars are freedom. You can go anywhere, anytime, without worrying about a delayed schedule or how many connections you’d need to get exactly where you’re going.

        You can listen to your own music and carry as much as you like, without worrying about someone trying to steal it or altercations with the public.

        I agree we need electric cars, but anti-car policy is ultimately just trapping people in cities, allowing the rich to still enjoy their cars from commuter towns, etc. whilst the working class are stuck in overcrowded pod apartments. This is literally the reality in a lot of Spain, Sweden, etc. where you’re lucky to get even a 70m2 apartment and parking is extortionate.

        • lp0101@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          cars are freedom

          What about my freedom to walk or bike? My freedom to be able to cross the street? My freedom to get milk without taking 2000 pounds of metal with me?

          Cars warp entire cities around them. In an ideal world, everyone would be able to own a car, but very few people would need to own a car

        • TanakaAsuka@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re ignoring the thing car drivers complain about the most, traffic delays. To me real freedom is being able to get to the places I need to using my own two feet, without needing to spend thousands every year on a car, insurance, etc. Headphones also exist and let you enjoy your own music while outside of a car without disturbing anyone!

          What we need everywhere is a people first policy that makes it so you don’t need a car to get around, especially in cities.

          I’m not sure what you are talking about with Spain. People there are not “trapped” in cities, they have good public transit in most cities and one of the best high speed rail systems in the world to get between cities, on top of that an extensive bus system that is even cheaper and extensive than the trains.

          • nivenkos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            But in Spain there are not connections to most places outside cities, like most smaller towns don’t even have rail connections, nevermind going to the countryside and touristic places.

            Yeah, it’s okay between cities (although AVE is expensive), but that’s my point - it’s only cities.

            • TanakaAsuka@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              In Spain you can totally get the bus to most places, especially touristy places! AVE is expensive but there are budget high speed operators operating now and the bus is cheap. All these options are far cheaper than owning a car (and cheaper than owning a car in a car centric country as well!).

              Also those towns that don’t have good connections it’s mostly poor people living there, so rather than being stuck in cities because they don’t own cars, they’re stuck in poor rural towns because there is no transit to other places!

        • GFGJewbacca@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think the view behind the anti-car movement is that there shouldn’t be cars. Period. Doesn’t matter what income bracket. Gas powered cars create huge amounts of pollution, all cars generate lots of waste and are in general very inefficient modes of transportation.

          I believe in the end it advocates for busses and trains (above and below ground)as public transit. I think there’s also a belief that infrastructure is supposed to be updated to support this. Busses get their lane, while most of a street is for people moving under their own power, be it walking, cycling or using a wheelchair.

          • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think the view behind the anti-car movement is that there shouldn’t be cars. Period.

            I don’t think so. Fuck-car people are rather against the omnipresence of private cars and how cities prioritize them instead of greener means of transportation, which creates mortal danger, pollution, wasted energy, wasted materials and wasted space. But I don’t think they would mind the occasional car for reasonable usage like disabled people, craftsmen, public services etc.

          • nivenkos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I live in one of the cities with the “best” public transport in the world. But it’s impossible for one of my friends to get to her night shift outside the city by public transport. It’s like a train for 40 minutes, and then an infrequent bus and then walking - all as a lone woman at night.

            Or a 30 minute drive… in the safety of your own car.

            I don’t see how public transport could ever be “improved” to solve that, it becomes increasingly expensive to cover every destination.

            Nevermind the fact that most of the anti-car people are the same ones pushing for rehabilitative “justice”, defunding the police and weak sentencing - that’s not making walking at night and public transport any safer!

            • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s not only the transportation means, it’s also the city design which is biased by the car culture. If your friend’s only reasonable solution is a 30-min driver, and she didn’t intentionally decide to live in some isolated place, then the city design is a failure.

        • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, not really. You can go with a car only where infrastructure (roads) has been built, same as transit. There’s more places reachable by that infrastructure, but that is only because things have been built around it. You absolutely do have to worry about delays; there are after all things like traffic jams and road closures. You have to worry about the route you take, not in the form of what connections to take but in the form of navigating the right route. People absolutely have to worry about things like theft and altercation when driving, else people wouldn’t lock their cars, and road rage wouldn’t exist.

          Personally, after having moved somewhere I can manage to at least live my life, without owning a car, I find it feels a lot more freeing to just be able to walk places I want to be, or get on a train that someone else is driving, than having to own some expensive machine that needs periodic and also costly maintenance, and then having to operate it constantly to get anywhere, with the risk of accidently killing someone if I make a mistake.

          • everythingsucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            You can go with a car only where infrastructure (roads) has been built

            I can drive a car from where I’m at right now to where you’re at right now. And I’m not even going to ask where you’re at. I think that’s pretty neat.

            But I do agree, walkability and reliable public transit are super nice. The time I’ve spent in smaller, remote ski towns where I could walk/bike or take a bus anywhere in a short amount of time are some of my favorite memories.

  • Billiam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    City officials in June said there have been ninety incidents involving Alphabet’s Waymo and General Motors’ Cruise vehicles since January.

    Compared to how many traffic incidents involving human-operated vehicles? Because if that number is greater than 90, the AVs are the safer choice.

    Automated cars don’t have to be perfect; they just have to be better than people.

    • CaptFeather@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      To play devil’s advocate, how many AVs are on the road everyday? There are millions of cars on the road so naturally there are going to be a ton of accidents.

    • CoderKat@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The comparison needs to be normalized for distance driven. There’s far more human driven cars. But most humans don’t spend that long driving (I’m not sure how much of the day is spent driving by these AI cars, but they theoretically could drive all day long).

      The quota also does say “involving”, which may include accidents where someone else hits an AI driven car. If so, that’s highly misleading.

    • wimpysocks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Compared to how many traffic incidents involving human-operated vehicles? Because if that number is greater than 90, the AVs are the safer choice.

      Well that is simply flawed logic. How many autonomous cars are there compared to human-operated? Far far more.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How many autonomous cars are there compared to human-operated? Far far more.

        I think you meant less.

        Ideally, you’d be correct and we should be looking at per capita incidents- like how many incidents per 100 miles on the road or something. But the article just cited a flat number of incidents without contextualizing, which as you’ve pointed out can be misleading. Without knowing the ratio of AVs to human-driven vehicles, the best rebuttal that could be offered is “Yeah, but how do those 90 incidents compare to how people drive?”

    • Shazbot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bay Area native here. They’re also prone to dead stopping in the middle of the street and other moving violations, blocking emergency services and public transit in addition to normal traffic. Ideally, we’d like these vehicles to be held accountable for these violations like normal drivers: fines, suspensions, impounds. But we’ll settle for a human driver on standby who can immediately override the software when a moving violation occurs.

    • Qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And they will definitely be better than people. Just them being able to communicate with each other, even locally, can remove the need for traffic lights already.

      • firadin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What percent uptime does your phone’s wifi/bluetooth/mobile internet have? Is it exactly 100%?