Steve Saunders Goldwing Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 31 of 31 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,444 Posts
What if State Farm offers you a 50% discount on your insurance rate if you simply have this device plugged in? Or they void your coverage if it's found that you didn't have the device on-board when you crashed? What if you (or your estate) is sued because your lack of this "basic safety device" caused an accident?

I know we all love the perception that when we're behind the wheel or have our knees are in the breeze that we're free to act as we want. But the reality is we're constrained by infrastructure and the rules of appropriate use. Is driving the wrong way on a one-way street an act of freedom? The present "Collective" communicates visually, with signage, traffic signals, brake lights, turn signals and with relative location and velocity perception. All of which act at the speed of human reaction time at best. It only takes a bit of fog or a moment of inattention by one member to cause grave danger to themselves and those around them.

If you view this as an assault on your freedom, remember that as a passive member, you alone would be in control of your vehicle. The device would be there to protect the rest of the herd from your "acts of freedom".

The infrastructure is changing. Rules of appropriate use will change too.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,444 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
373 Posts
I am all for it on the highway. City traffic, not so for now. Agree with some of the others, mix people driving and computers doing the driving, there will be problems. For the highway/freeway, they are going to have to designate a lane(s) for these vehicles to start with.


Here in So Cal, people just do not get it that when you come to a uphill grade you have to give it some gas. You will be driving along at 70+ and come to a uphill grade. You are then down to 50 before you know it. A little more time and then there is a major traffic jam where everyone is going 10 mph for no reason other than people can not maintain their speed up a slight hill. Get to the top of the hill and go over it, you are back to 70+. Now add a curve in the road that was designed to be taken at 80+ and traffic is at a stand still! I see areas all over So Cal that this happens every day, even on the weekends. Take peoples fear and lack of attention out of the picture and traffic would flow more freely. Mix them together, there will be problems.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
491 Posts
If you view this as an assault on your freedom, remember that as a passive member, you alone would be in control of your vehicle. The device would be there to protect the rest of the herd from your "acts of freedom".

The infrastructure is changing. Rules of appropriate use will change too.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" :NO:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,649 Posts
Today self driving car is safer then : Very old driver, very young driver, drunk driver, drug use driver, distracted driver, moron driver.
In the future they will be driving as good or better then the best drivers.
It will work
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
24,382 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
Today self driving car is safer then : Very old driver, very young driver, drunk driver, drug use driver, distracted driver, moron driver.
In the future they will be driving as good or better then the best drivers.
It will work
Yes but it is the mix that is the problem.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,444 Posts
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" :NO:
I'm a big fan of Ben Franklin too, but I fail to see how his railing against the refusal of the Penn family to contribute financially to the defense of the Pennsylvania during the French and Indian War is relevant to this discussion. Ben was certainly not an Anarchist. In fact, when this quote is taken in context of the Pennsylvania Assembly circa 1755, it could be reasonably argued that Ben would be in favor of an elected legislature to enact "rules of appropriate use". I could go on, but I'd rather this thread not devolve into a squabble over political ideology.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,444 Posts
Yes but it is the mix that is the problem.
I agree, the mix is the problem. Seems to me that the infrastructure will evolve to accommodate the interconnected car. So just as the Amish have added electric lights and an orange triangle to their REALLY old school modes of transportation, is it unreasonable that we, as owners of mid-century cars and bikes, not do the same? Can't we meet the 21st century half way?

Should a passive transponder be made available, I'm sure we'll see them on Amish horse-drawn carriages. It's a matter of self-preservation on their part. Automobile/buggy accidents never turn out well for the Amish.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
491 Posts
I'm a big fan of Ben Franklin too, but I fail to see how his railing against the refusal of the Penn family to contribute financially to the defense of the Pennsylvania during the French and Indian War is relevant to this discussion. Ben was certainly not an Anarchist. In fact, when this quote is taken in context of the Pennsylvania Assembly circa 1755, it could be reasonably argued that Ben would be in favor of an elected legislature to enact "rules of appropriate use". I could go on, but I'd rather this thread not devolve into a squabble over political ideology.
Yes, I know the history of the quote and how it's usually used out of context and I'm glad you didn't go on even more. That paragraph was plenty to show that you, too, are familiar with it.
I meant for it to be taken, literally, for what it says and I'm sure you recognized that since, like you stated, raising money for defense wouldn't be relevant to the discussion. Thanks for the history lesson, though.
 
21 - 31 of 31 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top