pitchforksNbonfires t1_j1zsmdv wrote
Reply to comment by OhioJeeper in New Pennsylvania laws taking effect in 2023. Here’s a look at some of the laws that will go into effect in the new year. by oldschoolskater
Why should anyone care if they do or don't get a DUI? Is this about punishing alcoholics or saving lives?
I’m fairly certain that the point of citing and punishing impaired drivers is to make roads safer in order to save lives. Meaning that the “saving lives” part is the primary, not secondary purpose of DUI (and distracted driver) laws.
My points about DUI and distracted driving are relevant as they would directly affect the operation of technology-assisted vehicles, from both a safety and law-enforcement standpoint.
The primary purpose of traffic law is public safety. To say it a different way, the concept and development of traffic laws were borne out of the need for public safety. Is there any question about this?
What flows from that original purpose - the punitive nature of law enforcement - in no way reduces or alters the original and primary intent of traffic laws.
The NHTSA article you link does indeed extol the virtues of technology-assisted vehicles. Interestingly, the agency continues to have numerous investigations into safety problems with technology-assisted vehicles. Weird dichotomy.
The story was widely publicized and what got reported was so far off from what any official investigation found actually happened based off of evidence
A personal anecdote has no validity unless you can provide some specifics or documentation.
This was all at least 5 years ago, and there's been a ton of research done by NHTSA on the tech making a strong case for exactly the opposite of what you're saying.
Again - Cite the “ton of research by NHTSA.” Links to actual studies would be nice. It’s funny that you say they have research that points to the safety of technology-assisted vehicles, yet there are numerous investigations by the same agency questioning their safety. Both things can’t be true. (redundant paragraph)
————————————-
from the MSN article I linked:
“As CNN points out, this crash occurred just hours after Tesla CEO Elon Musk made FSD Beta available to all drivers, regardless of if they passed the Tesla safe-driving test conducted by an onboard driver-monitoring system.”
“The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is also investigating both Autopilot and FSD Beta after years of inaction. Tesla is now reporting fatal crashes involving FSD. Here’s what the probe has found so far, according to previous reporting:”
“First reported in August, NHTSA’s probe targeted 11 crashes involving Teslas. Thursday the NHTSA said that it had identified six more crashes, and that 15 injuries were tied to the crashes, including one fatality. The crashes involve collisions with first responder vehicles, though NHTSA indicated Thursday it would be investigating more than that.”
What’s troubling about this:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is also investigating both Autopilot and FSD Beta after years of inaction.
“After years of inaction...?”
This contradicts your statement, “there's been a ton of research done by NHTSA on the tech making a strong case for exactly the opposite of what you're saying.”
Sounds like the Tesla and the technology got a pass for a long time.
Unfortunately there continues to be a substantial human toll to this inaction.
OhioJeeper t1_j1zw1ys wrote
>My points about DUI and distracted driving are relevant as they would directly affect the operation of technology-assisted vehicles, from both a safety and law-enforcement standpoint.
What are you even talking about? What about being drunk is relevant to the operation of a "self driving vehicle" that wouldn't be with a regular vehicle?
>Both things can’t be true.
multiple things can absolutely be true at the same time and I see no point in continuing this conversation as it seems you struggle with that concept, especially if you'd so quickly reject NHTSA research as not being sufficient so quickly without offering up some credible counterpoints. That MSN article you linked is a single data point, not a definitive source.
>A personal anecdote has no validity unless you can provide some specifics or documentation.
Fucking peak irony right here, I'm not about to post up one of my former classmate's personal information for you to tear apart their story because you'd rather steer conversations toward your own shitty misguided view of the world than broaden your perspective. I offered that to give some context to how long this "debate" has been going on.
pitchforksNbonfires t1_j20wueg wrote
Stay classy - you elevate the dialogue that way. Profanity is always a nice touch.
People like you always get tweaked when you can’t make an argument without insulting the other party. Every time.
What “NHTSA research?”
Where is it? Link? Point it out, for God’s sake. Is that asking too much? Support your argument.
What about being drunk is relevant to the operation of a "self driving vehicle" that wouldn't be with a regular vehicle?
Being impaired is just as relevant in a self-driving vehicle as in a regular vehicle. That was my point.
You wrote, Why should anyone care if they do or don't get a DUI? Is this about punishing alcoholics or saving lives?
You were the one diminishing the element of impairment - by the above statement.
The msn article is one event. As I’ve repeatedly stated, there are numerous NHTSA safety investigations into accidents involving technology-assisted vehicles - and I provided a link - which you completely ignore because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
Regardless of the fairy tale world you may live in, the safety of these vehicles has not yet been established - based on the numerous accident investigations.
As far as your make-believe anecdote, a story can be relayed without divulging any personal information. You chose not to do that.
You have an elevated view of your debating skills, as evidenced by your dropping the “my legal ethics course” and your “masters,” in your original post. That’s supposed to either impress or intimidate. People who do things like that don’t have the confidence of genuine one-on-one debating, so the “credentials” are supposed to give them an advantage.
It didn’t work.
OhioJeeper t1_j21ar8r wrote
>Stay classy - you elevate the dialogue that way. Profanity is always a nice touch.
You're right and I'm sorry, I should have realized there was a child present.
>People like you always get tweaked when you can’t make an argument without insulting the other party. Every time.
Calling you out on being wrong isn't an insult when you're wrong.
>What “NHTSA research?”
>Where is it? Link? Point it out, for God’s sake. Is that asking too much? Support your argument.
🖕I linked you to their site directly, I'm not your mom/teacher/librarian/whoever it was that failed to teach you how to research something on your own. But because I'm in the Christmas spirit, here's a Wikipedia article to get you started.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_self-driving_cars
>Being impaired is just as relevant in a self-driving vehicle as in a regular vehicle. That was my point.
Not when we're talking about technology that would provent drunks from plowing into pedestrians. Police are either responding to accidents or hopefully cathing the person before they kill someone. Self driving tech is always there.
>The msn article is one event. As I’ve repeatedly stated, there are numerous NHTSA safety investigations into accidents involving technology-assisted vehicles - and I provided a link - which you completely ignore because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
I don't have an agenda, but it's starting to make sense why you thought a souce offering up the opinions of politicians on NHTSA research was the same as a source that's directly from NHTSA.
>As far as your make-believe anecdote, a story can be relayed without divulging any personal information. You chose not to do that.
I'm sure more details from my personal anecdote were all it's going to take to convince someone that's arguing against NHTSA based on the opinions of politicians.
>That’s supposed to either impress or intimidate.
The intention was to provide context for the anecdote but it's absolutely hilarious that you think that can be used to intimidate. Don't let those stupid science bitches make you more smarter.
>It didn’t work.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ can't save everyone from themselves.
WikiSummarizerBot t1_j21asq9 wrote
>The impact of self-driving cars is anticipated to be wide-ranging on many areas of daily life. Self-driving cars have been the subject of significant research on their environmental, practical, and lifesyle consequences. One significant predicted impact of self-driving cars is a substantial reduction in traffic collisions and resulting severe injuries or deaths. United States government estimates suggest 94% of traffic collisions are caused by human error, with a 2020 study estimating that making 90% of cars on US roads self-driving would save 25,000 lives per year.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
chickenonthehill559 t1_j21tr9t wrote
You completely missed my point about drunk and distracted drivers. I would be on the road with a driverless vehicle that has a very small error % rather than be on the road with a drunk or distracted driver. Just because there are laws against driving drunk or distracted, does not mean there are people doing it consistently. Every day there are plenty of dumbasses driving drunk.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments