He was charged with Vehicular Homicide[0], which is a felony. I'm curious how many years of jail he gets. Wikipedia states that in Georgia it's 3-15 years of prison, and in Louisiana it's 2-20 years. I agree it'd be nice if this was more consistent state to state though.
That man, Jerry Guy, admitted he had been drinking and taking prescribed painkillers the night of the accident, and had been convicted in two earlier hit-and-runs. He served six months in jail for the crime.
Additionally, as someone noted in the linked story, the bus stop was nearly a mile away from the crosswalk.
They ask people to use public transportation, but make it as inconvenient as possible to do so.
the fact that she was convicted at all defies logic - how would her and her children being on crosswalk have stopped the drunk driver which had 2 previous hit-and-runs ? (until of course it is a crosswalk above or below the road - not likely seeing the photographs of the road and the neighborhood). Even then, lets suppose instead of the drunk driver there were a gang shooting (or just a drunk shooting cans) and the stray bullet - would she still be convicted of the jaywalking? Dissolution/de-emphasizing of the importance of "mens rea" while increasing the punishment for just being at the wrong place at the wrong time is very worrisome tendency.
No, it makes perfect sense. She's black, and she faced an all-white jury. This is in suburban Atlanta.
This is where "jury of your peers" can be pretty useful. Apparently none of the jurors had ever ridden in a bus before.
I really also want to put the city planner up for trial, because the reason she jay walked was that the nearest legal crosswalk was half a mile away from the bus stop. In suburban Atlanta, however, I've never seen any evidence that city planners even exist.
That is exactly what cars are. They are weapons loaded with ammunition and ready to be fired. It baffles me that many people don't seem to be aware of this material reality.
Familiarity. "Hmm, I've spent thousands of hours driving carelessly and haven't killed anyone. Why start being careful now? It'll just make me late to my meeting."
(As a cyclist, I think people drive a lot better than they are made out to, however. I can't think of any time anyone's endangered my life.)
As a cyclist, I think 99.99% of people drive a lot better than they are made out to. The 0.005% that meander onto the shoulder and swerve back into their lanes, narrowly avoiding you, are scary. The 0.005% that throw empty beer cans, honk as they drive by, swerve towards you intentionally, or otherwise try to run you off the road are the ones that really get me. I can think of three times when 50+MPH vehicles have been within 6 inches or less of me or my bike. If that doesn't count as endangerment, I don't know what does. Two of my friends have been hit (admittedly, both were in 25 MPH zones, survived with minimal injuries, and the drivers were in the first category).
I've been commuting via bicycle for seven years now. The majority of my experience has been positive. But I can think of five instances off the top of my head where my life was nearly forfeit to dangerous car drivers. Two of these instances I was harassed (profanities + shouting that bicycles don't belong on the road), driven off the road, and expected to be run over. Fwiw, I live in a mid-size city in central CA.
I'm always surprised at the unmitigated hostility at cyclists on the road. Like, nasty aggressive swerving, cussing, etc., all kinds of driving that makes the car driver a far greater liability than the cyclist.
As a longtime bicycle commuter and rider I have several times been on the receiving end of aggressive driving that was clearly intended to intimidate if not outright kill or injure. It is (fortunately) rare, but there are some people who do not seem to understand the responsibilities that come with the privilege of driving a motor vehicle.
You are probably a pretty good cyclist then. As best I can tell, cyclist's opinions of me as a driver tend to be directly correlated to how far into my lane they ride.
The ones that ride smack-dab in the middle of the lane on a 2-lane highway can be counted on to shake their fist at you any time you don't use the entire other lane for passing.
As best I can tell, cyclist's opinions of me as a driver tend to be directly correlated to how far into my lane they ride.
If there are parked cars, you have to move into the lane or risk getting doored. Near intersections, you have to move into the lane or people will cut you off and turn right in front of you when you're going straight. If the road has no shoulder, you have to move into the lane to dissuade people from running you off the road by trying to pass with insufficient space (and to give yourself some margin in case someone tries). The same holds if the shoulder is full of debris. If you're descending a hill, you have to move into the lane so you can maneuver around turns.
Any safe cyclist will spend some time taking a lane of traffic.
In reply to all three of you, I know a cyclist can take a lane. I was mostly referring to the ones that half-pretend to be riding on the shoulder, not taking a lane but not doing a good job staying out of the lane. I liken it to a car using 2 lanes, which is just as frustrating.
When it comes to 2-lane highways, I realize I am a little biased but I expect some co-operation on the part of cyclists. It doesn't have to all be about "me-me-me", but I expect cyclists to work with me to allow me to pass safely, same as I do for cars when I'm cycling on a 2-lane highway.
That. I get annoyed when cyclists aren't riding far enough to the left. Don't go straight through the right side of the right turn only lane. Turn left from the left lane.
Lately I've started riding farther to the left, and I've found it to prevent a lot of annoying situations. One situation that is made much easier is where a there's a traffic light with a lane to the right, but where that right lane becomes parking after the light. Instead of stopping in the right lane, it's much easier to just stop behind the cars. Then you don't have to merge in when the light turns green and you go across the intersection; you're already merged in. And, cars can pass you and turn right on red, which people seem to like to do.
I'm convinced that staying to the right is what kills cyclists. There are doors there, there are pedestrians jumping out in front of you, there are cars turning right. Ride confidently and you avoid all that. You have as much right to a full traffic lane as any other road user.
Don't get killed because you don't want to make someone late for their meeting.
Iirc, CA law says cyclists should use the bicycle lane when safe and convenient, but should not hesitate to act like a motor vehicle in the normal lanes when needed. Like you, I've found staying to the left of right-turn-only lanes prevents a lot of cutoff situations. It sounds like obvious advice, but it can feel intimidating for cyclists not used to traffic.
In my city (at least) cyclists are entitled to a full lane, just as a car is. If there is a curb lane designated for bicycles that is preferred, but a cyclist can always take up a full lane if needed.
The number of deaths is around 90 a day in the US. That's down from like 115 a day 10 years ago. Still more to be done, but I don't think it's as high as some think.
Motor vehicle accidents kill the young (rarely); cancer and cardiovascular disease kill the old (frequently). Oddly enough, people regard a 4 year old killed by/in a car as a worse outcome than that same 4 year old growing up to be an 89 year old killed by cancer or heart disease.
Why? Plenty of people are able to drive a vehicle, and drive it well. It's the many who aren't, or choose to ignore the rules who are causing danger.
The "every vehicle should be automated" line is lowest common denominator FUD.
How about we start by actually applying a proper, rigorous upgrade to the new driver education from the DMV, and stop treating driving as a right, and instead a privilege?
How about we improve mass transit and spend more money fixing roads (which is a bigger cause of accidents than you might imagine).
What about Signage, which is over abundant and people ignore - or important signage which is entirely missing (many median lines are faded away - not repainted due to lack of funding)?
And what about the culture where drinking and driving is, in many states, acceptable? Why isn't there a dramatic and meaningful campaign to demonstrate that there is really only zero-tolerance to drink-driving that is acceptable?
The United States approach to driving is embarrassing and smacks of largesse, but for much of the country, where there is an abundance of space and empty roads, is tolerated.
Accidents happen routinely in city centers and suburban areas where the laws and driving regulations are not more stricter, but often just as (if not more) relaxed.
There isn't consideration given to heavy traffic, patterns of driving, preparing for exits - it's just expected that as long as you know how to steer and stop at a sign, you are qualified to drive.
Computer controlled cars is a stupid argument (mostly because they are almost already there, in the full part, and certainly the car you are driving is doing more work than you are to get you to your destination). Never mind the fact that the better answer is amazing and undeniable mass transit, obviating the need for personal car ownership in densely populated areas, and a 2-3 magnitude leap in driver education to prevent such stupidity on the roads as a basic requirement to even begin to address this problem.
In America, we have a choice of where we want to live. Do we take the .011%/yr chance we will die in an auto accident and also have a large house, yard, and live in a safer neighborhood for our kids? Or do we live in the higher-crime urban center, but ride mass transportation? He tragically lost on these odds, and it is a sad day for his family and humanity.
I have a friend who commutes to work via motorcycle, so he can spend an extra 40 minutes a day with his kids versus driving a car. Or hours better than mass transit.
But, you are correct that drivers need to pass stricter testing and it needs to occur regularly, but since the majority of voters are bad drivers and could very well lose their licenses, it will always be opposed.
I agree. But i'd like to see several magnitudes more investment in mass transit and mass transit systems before mandatory driverless cars. I think we can achieve much more if we put our minds to solving that problem (mass trans) first.
And what about the culture where drinking and driving is, in many states, acceptable? Why isn't there a dramatic and meaningful campaign to demonstrate that there is really only zero-tolerance to drink-driving that is acceptable?
States have been cracking down on drunk driving for the past decade or two. If there ever was a culture where drinking and driving was "acceptable" on a state level it has long since disappeared.
If you don't mind me asking, where do you currently live (you're clearly from the Queen's domain) and, if it isn't in the US, how did you get this idea that the US doesn't take drinking and driving seriously?
Look at my other post in this threads to see where I'm coming from, but - I don't think these things work well. Probably statistics prove me wrong. On the other hand, statistics prove me wrong every time I complain about Harry Potter.
Is a morbid/overly scary scene really going to reach the people that are (for all I know) most vulnerable to 'drink driving' (Never heard that combination before, not a native speaker, copying here)? I'd set a good bet on 'no way'. It's either 'stupid' (You know.. You can do it better. You are a GOOD driver) or 'lecturing' (Thank you. YES, I know that it is bad. YES, I will be careful).
In Germany we used to have things like that for speeding. You're on a street without speed limit, but the road sign shows a lone guy, looking at a black framed picture of his family, subtitled 'Don't go too fast' or something.
I failed to see any reaction among the people that passed by to that and I know that I don't like trying to play with emotions/wasn't vulnerable to these things. Still, we have thousands of those, in wild varieties (small girls without her parents seem to be the rage right now).
In the uk at least, there was a large amount of misinformation and bad knowledge about the real effects, what happens at one drink/two drinks, etc. It's also a case of- it's so horrific, that unless it happens to affect you directly, you tend to ignore it- it's too much to take in.
I think these campaigns were incredibly effective at reminding everyone that zero-tolerance is the only safe option, and that the results are catastrophic.
Remember, it's as much about reminding normal/decent people to take their more vulnerable friend's keys away from them before they do something stupid. Peer pressure is a strong motivator not to do it again. :)
While I do think the UK PSAs are probably very effective, I don't think it necessarily holds that the countries with the most shocking PSAs are the ones with the smallest drink-driving problems.
I don't have any data to back it up, but I do remember seeing statistics which showed that, after the successful PSA campaigns in the 90s, the UK had to start seriously considering the effect of the road quality as contributory to accidents.
Reading between the lines:
a: car manufacturers make safer cars
b: driving education is both better than it ever has been, and one of the best in the world (but there's still some to go! see scandinavia's skid pan training and such for ALL drivers!)
c: driver error is a lot smaller than it used to be.
Yes, there are still those who will drink and drive. I think we need to go thru one or two more generations before this is essentially eradicated. But the gulf of difference between the UK and US attitude to this is astounding.
I lived in the UK for the first 27 years of my life. Admitting to drinking and driving there, in my experience, elicited very strongly-voiced disapproval. And not just from some particular demographic - it was universal.
I moved to California in 2003. The day I went to WaMu to open a US bank account, the teller was annoyed it was raining, because she was going out drinking that night and would have to drive back "buzzed and in the rain" from SF to Mountain View. I was shocked, but unfortunately I can't say it's been an isolated occurrence here.
I live in the UK also, and while it is disapproved very strongly by lots of people, there are still plenty of people that drink drive. Amongst some generations, and within certain public houses, you'll find it's done on a nightly basis.
I live in New York, where the average driving skill is one of the poorest i've ever had to be around in the western world.
I know that states are 'cracking down'. But till you see some of the PSAs that the UK and European countries have issued to 'crack down' on drink driving, you'll note that there's simply no question as to the laissez-faire approach to drink-driving in this country.
Whilst attorneys can still advertise quite so blatantly to help you 'get off' your DUI/DWI convictions, without any social consequence, and where major motion pictures make light of it (Bad Teacher recently features a scene where Cameron Diaz's character suggests it's ok to drive home as she's only "Buzzed"), it's CLEAR that the attitude here is inadequate.
To be clearer: there's now a healthy social stigma in the UK to go out and drink and drive; friends will forcibly remove you from your keys if you've been drinking - and it's ok. The punishment is also more significant, where drink driving is considered dangerous driving - not a misdemeanor or less.
And most importantly (which somewhat counters my arguments-- but only tangentially) much of the US land mass is a single, lonely road from a bar to your house. When you don't see another car for ages, it might seem ok to drive home when you've had a bit too much - what can go wrong, you might run off the road and take a nap?
But this doesn't apply in mountainous regions, or other places where you have to have your wits about you because the terrain isn't a wide, open plain.
and it certainly doesn't hold true when you're near/on Long Island (for example, as I see stories like this at least ONCE A MONTH), where you 'accidentally' get on the expressway the wrong way, and ram some innocent family's car.
[ and as an aside, to reinforce my signage point: off-ramps have "WRONG WAY" signed on the back of the exit-info signs. So that you know you're going the wrong way, if the angle of the ram and the difficulty you'll have experienced in entering it wasn't enough. Why there isn't the tire bursting heavy-duty spikes on off-ramps is totally beyond me. ]
how did you get this idea that the US doesn't take drinking and driving seriously?
As a US citizen I will observe, I have found far too many don't take it seriously. Additionally, it is sometimes hard to believe our government takes it seriously. Just a year or two ago there was a lady killed on her scooter in SF by a drunk driver. Turns out it was that driver's 3rd conviction of drunk driving, and 2nd or 3rd vehicular homicide while drunk.
Anecdotes aside, compare the punishments for DUI's in the USA to the rest of the world. I think you'll find they are comparatively more lenient than you might suspect.
Comparing the punishment for a first offense DUI in my state (Colorado [1]) to the UK [2]:
Format will be Punishment: CO/UK
License suspended for: 9 months/12-36 months, depending on BAC
Fine: $600-$1000/£0-£5000 (apparently £300-£400 is typical due to how the UK hands out fines with their band system [3])
Jailtime: Minimum 5 days, maximum 1 year/Depends on BAC but none is pretty standard until you get to a .276 and then it's 3 months to 6 months standard
Community service: 48-96 hours/Depends on BAC, but none is standard until you get to a .207 BAC
It looks to me as though my state (which is not indicative of the United States) takes drunk driving much more seriously. This isn't even considering the fact that a DWAI can be given out to a driver that blows a .05 (the UK requires a .08) at the officer's discretion. DWAI penalties are similar to DUI penalties. Note also that it is mandatory for you to disclose any alcohol related driving offenses when you apply for a job in Colorado so it isn't like you can hide behind something being a misdemeanor vs a felony.
Whilst I don't have stats on hand, it's FAR more likely in your state for a plea bargain than in the UK, since that's the way each legal system is structured.
So, in the UK, you can pretty much guarantee you're going to be in trouble. In the US, there's a reasonable chance you'll get off.
That completely changes the risk balance judgement you make before you go and drink-drive. (obviously that's speculation, but I think it's a reasonable statement).
Let me give you a data point as well. I don't feel that it can harm me here - if you judge me by this I couldn't care less and everyone close to me knows about it. I'm not afraid of sharing it.
I'm in my early thirties but a couple (6? 8? I'd need to look it up) years ago I did what no one wants to confess doing: I was at a student party, roughly 20km away from home. I had a lot of beer (too much) and, after a (subjective) long chill-out time with a friend (no alcohol, just watching series, talking, etc.) I convinced myself that I was able to drive home.
To this date I claim that the intentions were good: The following morning a renowned speaker was talking at the place where I studied and I wanted to be there. But - first of all intentions don't matter in this case and then I don't trust myself with this reasoning. At that time I might've been convinced of this 'need' and probably I repeated it after that night so often that it just seems to be true. Is it? I cannot tell.
I drove home, in a car that I bought a month ago (used, but on a lease). Mind you, this is the German Autobahn, but I wasn't speeding. Probably in the range of 120-140 km/h. I crashed my car. To this day no one knows (and the only person that _could_ explain it is writing these lines) what happened, the best explanation after some serious steps back, mentally, is that I just fell asleep for a second. I touched the middle guard railing (if the dictionary provides me with the right word), reacted poorly (..) and crashed into the right one, two times. Came to a standstill. I was alone in the car, the (2-lane) road was empty at that hour (4am? 5am?). I was fine - and incredibly lucky.
A truck driver stopped and asked me if I was okay and repeatedly, to make sure that I actually make sense, if someone is still in the car. Then he called the police, as it is the law. They took the wrecked car, brought me into a police station, did a multitude of tests (reaction, pupils etc. pp) and took blood. I'm not sure if they took my driving license at that point already, but I think they did. Afterwards they sent me home (I took a bus with my last money).
I got a trial for this incident with the result that the judge said I did a mightily bad mistake but he saw now reason to claim that I did this intentional (it's a huge difference if you are (grossly) negligent or found to do something intentional/on purpose).
Result:
- I was alive, well, no one was harmed. Luck!
- I lost my driving license for 10 month. I needed to do prove my physical ability again to regain it afterwards. I didn't need to do (something that you get if you are a not a first time offender, have a bad record or cross over a line of blood alcohol) a psychological test to check if I'd ever be allowed to drive again. Do you have something similar over there?
- I lost my 'new' used car, so I had debts worth a couple thousand EUR for a car that was gone
- I was sentenced to a fine of 30 days, my income was set to be 50 EUR -> 1500 EUR (my real income at that time was 500 EUR/month, I don't get the numbers)
- My insurance refused to pay the (still not sure about the word) guarding rails. These innocent looking metal things are awfully expensive and added another couple of thousand EUR to my debt.
- I got some (4? 5?) points in our central register in Germany. You're allowed to have at max 18 points, but you get issues before (a forced 'reeducation'/driving course at 14 for example) before you lose your license. Points 'awarded' for stuff like this have a prolonged lifetime. Usually points are 'gone' after two years, unless you get new ones. These were set for 5 years, because of alcohol.
Needless to say, this was a hard (but maybe cheap - I just had to pay some money and no one was hurt) lesson. For the crappy idea of going home at night, drunk, after a party, I payed probably a sum that surpassed 5 digits, and I wasn't a victim. I _knew_ my mistake - and everyone around me as well. So - you're the idiot that realized it far too late..
Suffice to say: I won't repeat that. Funny enough I'm now in a country where this again seems to be more ~lenient~ or at least very common. I know, I'll never try it again.
The reason for this lengthy post: As you can certainly guess I have a strong feeling about this topic. Whatever you _think_ you can do after a couple of drinks doesn't matter. IF you crash (and the risk is higher than you think) you pay so much more. Even if you are drunk _and_ innocent, you lose. Don't do it! It's not worth the risk.
If you still think 'Hey, but I'm fine. I know how my body reacts.': The doctor that the police waked up to check me (just a minor embarrassment during the night, I'm still sorry for her as well though) wrote in her report that I showed no typical signs of alcohol abuse: Reaction time was okay, pupils reacted ok, I was calm (albeit shocked) and reasonable. If you think this is makes you able to drive, think again.
And - I love to drive. Still. And before I left Germany I used to drive fast, the last couple of years. I'd say I'm an experienced driver on our streets without speed limit. That doesn't help though.
Amen. And sorry for the long post..
(A disclaimer that I should've put into the post from the start: I downvoted the 'automatic cars' claim and upvoted the veto. Even with this experience I don't think that this is a solution. We could find a multitude of different things that you shouldn't handle carelessly, drunk or without care (and, you know, I could bring up an Amendment here, for one), but 'It can be used to cause harm, don't use it' is usually not a solution. Probably never is.)
So, driving while drunk is pretty dumb, but I wanna bring up the other elephant in your post that nobody ever seems to mention:
Drowsy driving.
Staying awake for 18 hours is the equivalent of a BAC of 0.05, roughly 2 drinks. That's waking up at 8 AM for work and driving home at a party at 2 AM, something that most of us have probably done. Staying awake for 24 hours is the equivalent of a BAC of 0.10, almost 5 drinks.
Perhaps because my friends all know that you shouldn't drive drunk, many more of them have crashed their cars due to falling asleep at the wheel than due to intoxication. It's just as dangerous, yet gets far less publicity.
In the United States, penalties for drunk driving vary by state. Wikipedia says that in California first-offense drunk driving is a misdemeanor crime, and one of the penalties can be a four-month driver license suspension. Since public transportation is inadequate in much of the country, many states offer an "occupational license" during a suspension that allows a person to drive to/from work. Likewise due to inadequate alternate transportation options, many drivers with suspended licenses violate the law and drive anyway; the penalties for this are often not very high.
Amazement, and a wistful longing for a simple freedom enjoyed in the distant, halcyon past. Before nervous, frightened people in denial of their own conspicuous mortality decided to remove yet another source of fun and excitement because of the irresponsible actions of a few.
I think the leading cause of death in "a few decades" will be profound boredom.
(Also, whilst a computer may indeed be well-suited to drive my car as a matter of principle, there is still the small matter of it being programmed by humans...)
Deadly car accidents aren't the actions of "a few". Anyone can cause one through inattentive driving, tiredness, mobile phone usage, and of course simple lack of experience.
The other tragic thing about car accidents is that your mistakes can kill not only yourself, but also many other people. You might argue (though I'd disagree) that someone who's been driving for 10 hours straight deserves to die in an accident, but you certainly can't argue that the family of 5 that he crashed into head-on deserved it too.
To suggest these countless people need to die to satisfy your need for thrills is somewhat like suggesting that vaccines are boring because they take away the excitement of not knowing which of your children will live to an adult age.
The car has certainly done far far far more good than bad. That's why we put up with the downside (a few deaths a day).
The issue is that there's a small minority of bad drivers who cause accidents. Removing everyones freedom to drive because of those few isn't very fair, and would result in a boring 'locked down' society.
Removing everyones freedom to drive because of those few isn't very fair, and would result in a boring 'locked down' society.
You can't expect a 'freedom' to exist in perpetuity for something that can easily result in the deaths of others by the actions of one person.
I'd put it in the same category as things like not allowing people to smoke in workplaces, public buildings, etc, or allowing people to shoot firearms in the backyards of their suburban homes.
I just don't see there being a 'freedom to manually control tons of metal for the purposes of transportation' trumping the immense amount of benefits to safety, among others.
We have umpteen checks to ensure drivers are as safe as they can be. Deaths in the US from driving have come down from around 120 a day in 2000 to around 90 a day now.
In the UK, it's about 8 deaths a day from driving. The road network is now eight times safer per mile travelled than it was in 1966.
Just for comparison, around 400+ people die each day in the UK from cancer.
Instead of wasting a ton of money making robotic driverless cars because it sounds good, I'd invest that money straight into cancer research.
Deaths in the US from driving have come down from around 120 a day in 2000 to around 90 a day now.
In other words, one 9/11 every month. I refuse to believe that's as safe as possible.
I'd invest that money straight into cancer research.
Well, you'd have to look at the marginal benefits. Cancer research already gets lots of funding; it's unlikely that a relatively small percentage increase would result in drastic improvements. If we're going down that road, I'd rather invest in SENS and try to knock out all age-related diseases in one shot.
I'm a bit surprised at the opposition to this. I'm much more libertarian than average here, but I recognize that driving is by far the most dangerous thing I do on an average day. If automated cars can mostly eliminate that danger, I'd have no problem requiring them on public roads (or strongly encouraging them via insurance premiums). Plus, saving lives is only one of the major benefits. Look at rush hour traffic: ideally, automated vehicles would eliminate traffic jams, and even if not they would still allow commuters to do something productive or entertaining instead of slowly inching forward.
Why waste a ton of money on cancer research that has a good chance of saving no lives, when you can invest money into driverless vehicles that are guaranteed to save lives?
Riight.. And your uber-safe automatic car is able to react if I, the stupid pedestrian (or worse, because I'm faster, biker) cross a road without looking.
No matter how fast you react, if you go at reasonable speeds and I'm the idiot, you're going to hit me (kill is optional). I think that's what your parent poster was trying to say (because that way it is a sensible argument). Whatever you implement in vehicle safety: If I'm able to throw myself in front of the thing in the last moment, hopefully because I'm a moron and not intentionally, then no technology on earth can avoid the accident.
Unless... You want to add mandatory robot bikes and robot shoes...
I'd argue that a self-driving car can take actions that a human drivers would not be capable of performing...
First of all, it will have much quicker reactions - and in accidents, those extra milliseconds do save lives. Secondly, it can take calm reactions where a human would panic. For example, if a parson started stumbling around drunkenly on a highway, with human drivers zooming past at 70mph a deadly accident is guaranteed. With self-driven cars, it's not that unreasonable to assume that they will be able to spot the person some distance away and change lane to shift around him or her. It might cause a slow-down in traffic around that area, but there's a good chance the whole incident can happen without accidents.
You can't expect a 'freedom' to exist in perpetuity for something that can easily result in the deaths of others by the actions of one person.
Sure you can, and many of us do. Freedom trumps damn-near everything as far as I'm concerned. And how many of us are planning on living forever anyway?
Sure you can, and many of us do. Freedom trumps damn-near everything as far as I'm concerned. And how many of us are planning on living forever anyway?
This can't be true. I mean, sure, you could take a rifle downtown, place a target on a brick wall and start honing your shooting skills across a busy road. You might even have every intention of avoiding causing other people any harm.
That doesn't mean I think you should have the freedom to do so.
>This can't be true. I mean, sure, you could take a rifle downtown, place a target on a brick wall and start honing your shooting skills across a busy road. You might even have every intention of avoiding causing other people any harm.
>That doesn't mean I think you should have the freedom to do so.
Hyperbole? Driving is dangerous, on that we are agreed, but the activity in your example is far, far, far more dangerous. There is obviously some standard of danger at which we no longer ban people from doing things: you aren't allowed to shoot at people, but you are allowed to carry a gun in the first place, and even regardless of your own intention this admits the possibility that someone insane might steal your gun and shoot innocent people.
So I don't think that valuing the freedom to control your own vehicle can be immediately dismissed as absurd. The apparent danger of driving is exaggerated by the astounding safety of modern life: at no point before 1900 did any human enjoy anything remotely approaching a modern standard of safety. In industrialized countries, the vehicle fatality rate is commensurate with or below the suicide rate. The number of people who enjoy the freedom of driving is massive, essentially the entire adult population of those countries, and so this common experience perhaps should not be ignored.
Some of -- but not all of -- the value in freedom is reflected in the potential for damage in non-freedom. If some external agent controls the mobility of the population, the potential for abuse is massive.
>is somewhat like suggesting that vaccines are boring because they take away the excitement of not knowing which of your children will live to an adult age.
I realize you use the word "somewhat", but I still stand by sipior. Autos are, for many, a necessary mode of transportation that have the unfortunate potential to be abused or misused. Knives can be used to prepare food or kill/maim others, as well. I hope no one thinks we should build robots to do all of our cooking for us on the chance we might slice a finger.
Slicing a finger and losing an entire family in a horrible car crash are hardly comparable. Your comparison is absurd.
If 80 people died every day (source: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx ) in the US from chopping up their vegetables, sometimes entire families slaughtered by a wayward broccoli stem, building robots to do our vegetable-chopping for us should definitely be a high priority.
Bear in mind I'm not advocating the removal of cars - merely that great efforts should be made to introduce self-driving cars over the next generation or two.
A strange complaint, coming from someone who not twenty minutes ago compared mandatory automated cars to vaccination, the former being a significant infringement on freedom for an undetermined safety gain and the latter being the most successful medical program in the history of humanity.
>Bear in mind I'm not advocating the removal of cars - merely that great efforts should be made to introduce self-driving cars over the next generation or two.
Okay, and that's fair, but this thread started with someone saying automated cars should be mandatory, so surely you'll understand if we choose to argue against that point?
I support computers being used to improve highway safety. I am not yet ready to conclude that the best way to go about this is to mandate self-driving cars for everyone, no exceptions.
Perhaps the mandate should be for those found guilty of reckless driving, aggressive driving, DUIs, vehicular homicide, etc. You get the privilege of driving until you are seen unfit to drive.
People found ways to not be bored in the millions of years before the invention of the automobile. The thrill of riding a horse. The thrill of running when you're fit.
Personally, I find driving to be the definition of boring. The distant, halcyon past is the brief decades (out of the entirety of human history) where we were able to live under the illusion that we could build a road system that would handle the burgeoning amount of traffic without gridlock.
I'll take you at your word regarding your examples of "thrills", although I would note that the horse is probably less impressed :-)
I'm not sure about your last point. Enormous strides have been made in designing road networks that are far more tolerant of heavy loads. But gridlock is also in some sense a social problem, and so a purely technological or algorithmic solution is perhaps unrealistic.
Having fun whilst driving is not actually incompatible with road safety, and I'm not entirely sure why you seem to be suggesting that it is. The cause of this horrible accident certainly wasn't an excess of (driving) enjoyment.
Humans suck at driving. As soon as we have the technology we should let machines do it. I’m willing to bet that there will be ample opportunities for those who are willing to take the risk to drive without endangering others.
He's not suggesting that having fun while driving is incompatible with road safety. He's suggesting that a world of mandatory robot drivers on public roads doesn't preclude having fun while driving.
Before nervous, frightened people in denial of their own conspicuous mortality decided to remove yet another source of fun and excitement because of the irresponsible actions of a few.
In general, driving is not a source of fun and excitement. In fact, commute times are strongly and negatively associated with self-reported happiness.
People drive for reasons other than commuting, of course. I happen to like driving (especially since I learned to drive a manual). I'm sorry if you don't.
Your last point is certainly true. I used to commute to work via a combination of bike and train; getting a car cut my commute in half, and I am decidedly happier for it.
Perhaps in a few decades more, people will look back in amazement at the wastefulness of suburban sprawl as well designed urban centers and public mass-transit replaces the need for automobiles?
And how will you program your car's computer to deal with situations that humans react to instinctively by thinking about context?
The most obvious one that comes to mind is the familiar question: "What follows a ball?" While you can program the answer ("A child"), can you reliably say that your car will recognize a ball? What about a soccer ball? A basketball? A golf ball? A football?
Driving is one of the activities that humans engage in that requires true cognizance and awareness. The idea that a computer is "best suited" for driving is laughable until we start using cars where situational awareness and context no longer matters (let's get to work on those flying cars).
I can reliably say that a robotic car will stop for unexpected objects in the roadway it detects with radar, visible and infrared light 100% of the time that it is physically possible, regardless of traffic, lighting or mood. What's your hit rate on that?
You're giving "human instinct" a whole lot of undeserved credit here.
Your car brakes. As hard as it can. Because - you know - there's a dove on the street. Or - god forbid. I have cats, so let me take a dog as an example - a bigger animal. Or a hare. Or - whatever. It might even _be_ a kid - see below for why. let's just say you avoid to hit - something.
You agree that this
- doesn't make sense all the time (You SAVED a hedgedog. Grats!)
- only works if the cars behind you (extrapolating: ALL other cars) handle just as quick and automatic as well? No 'rollout', you need to require it for each and every car if this should make sense.
> only works if the cars behind you (extrapolating: ALL other cars) handle just as quick and automatic as well? No 'rollout', you need to require it for each and every car if this should make sense.
Better a fender bender than a dead kid.
Human reaction time hovers at about .2 seconds, last I heard. Machines have much better reaction times. I would place far more trust in a self-braking car than in a human-braking car.
Furthermore, a machine is always watching the road. What percentage of the time do you think the average driver is watching the road, scanning for dangers, taking note of other cars and obstacles in the vicinity? I would wager that it's less than 60% of the time, though I admit that I don't have numbers to back that up.
> (You SAVED a hedgedog. Grats!)
Hitting animals can inflict significant damage to a car. Just putting that out there.
.2 is way to short. Only works when you're anticipating something and have all your muscles prepped for action. The realistic figure is 1 second for an attentative driver, a bit less if there is some signal ahead to anticipate the situation, way more if distracted by something (e.g. looking in the mirror for a lane change).
And to further your point even more, machines are much better at keeping the required distance for safely stopping. Stressed-out/aggressive humans tend to tail-gate ...
Not at all. A human would brake as hard as they can; the computer could detect the object and begin braking soon enough to brake more smoothly.
A computer also wouldn't be going fast enough in the first place that its panic braking could reasonably cause a driver to hit it. Tailgating one would make it slow down. But no one ever claimed that robotic cars could save you from other drivers' errors; that's the whole point, they should be universal because drivers kill other people.
Just remember, it isn't a matter of whether self-driving cars ever fail. They only have to do better than the current, abysmal ~3,000 fatalities per day.
Furthermore, this needs to be balanced against the potential for some seriously ugly 1984-style stuff when you give an external authority control of millions of cars. I don't understand how someone can complain about TSA regulations one day and turn around and ask for mandatory automated cars the next.
I don't think it's useful to include all countries in a statistic like that.
In that 3000 you're including countries without roads, signs, traffic laws, etc. You're including countries without speed limits, driving licenses, etc etc.
Wikipedia says the deaths in the US are about 90 a day.
Conversely, I think it is reasonable to assume that the orange and red countries on the map can and will eventually look like Europe. Higher than 150, yes, but 3000 only if you count deaths from places like Iran.
That's certainly a fair point. But you try explaining that to a person who lost a spouse or a child in a car crash resulting from a "glitch". Humans, for better or worse, like to have a sense of control over their own circumstances, even when that sense is almost completely illusory.
What a sad day it will be when driving becomes illegal for humans, I hope it is far far away.
There are much cheeper ways to make car traffic safer than going automatic cars route.
It's time to have mandatory computer controlled cars.
Driving manually should be illegal unless done in a race track.
I guarantee there are just as many incompetent programmers as there are incompetent drivers out there. The difference is: I can't control the other drivers; nor who wrote their car's controller code.
When it comes to my own two hands, at least I get a say in deciding that the roads are are a bit slippery today, and that I'm consequently going to reduce the total kinetic energy involved.
> I guarantee there are just as many incompetent programmers as there are incompetent drivers out there.
I don't feel this is a good argument against self-driving cars, mandatory or not. Code and hardware for self-driving cars would go through multiple passes of design, heavy testing both automated and manual, etc. The same can't be said of snap decisions by drivers. There will absolutely still be accidents with self-driving cars -- mechanical failures, bugs in software, etc. The question is whether that number would be significantly lower than the number of accidents that happen right now, and I find it highly doubtful that it wouldn't be.
Code and hardware for self-driving cars would go through multiple passes of design
I'm all in favour of space-shuttle levels of design, implementation and testing... but like the space shuttle, someone in management will find a way to cock it up.
Now, you make a good point: will it reduce the number of deaths? Doing zero research before I go to bed, my gut instinct is that yes, it would make a difference in countries where the requirements to gain a driving license are, in effect, the ability to write and sign one's name correctly.
For others... maybe, maybe not. Purely because I'm very pessimistic about how much money the car manufacturers would throw at the problem. Part of me thinks that the likes of Ford would, somewhat ironically, vastly outspend the likes of BMW.
I think the automatic car race would be really interesting. You'll have people fighting for the best safety numbers, the best comfort numbers (more smooth movements and such), etc. It would be an amazing bit of competition.
While I don't doubt there will be exploits, we already have a great deal of computer automation in vehicles, and one way they prevent potential hacks of the system is by making it one-way only. Plus, car manufacturers are actually being proactive about protection. More info: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/11q2/can_your_car_be_ha...
Very very sad to lose someone to such a stupid accident.
As far as computer controlled cars, my instinct is to disagree with you, but living in Houston, and considering that 10%-20% of Americans are taking prescription drugs including hypnotics/sedatives (Ambien etc.), and anti-psychotics/anti-depressants (Prozac, Wellbutrin, Cymbalta etc.), it's easy to agree that perhaps, many many people just should not be driving.
Or in some cases, leaving the house at all.
Besides, we have computer controlled cars, just not widely available.
speaking about more realistic scenario. We already have air bags inside the car. Honda started to make external airbags targeted at car-to-human cases. There is no technical problem to implement external airbags for car-to-car cases. Start with mandatory front-side external airbags on heavy cars like full-size SUVs and work the way down and sideways.
While we're at it, the fact that some people behave irresponsibly when drunk is clear evidence that we should ban the consumption of alcohol. What could go wrong?
Indeed that's what came to my mind. I mean it's freaking 2011, we are not supposed to be dependent on other' people's irresponsibility on the road when there are ways to reduce the risk. I know people will still find stupid ways to kill themselves, but at least take them out of the ubiquitous road network.
This is like saying "N people die from food poisoning at restaurants each year. Lets ban food created by humans, and only allow food created and tested by machines".
What a stupid comparison, cars can still transport you from a to b. I don't give a damn about some peoples enjoyment when people die all day on the streets.
Replace driving with terrorism when you talk about casualties and personal freedom. I don't want to live in that world, but i have to unless i get hit by a drunken driver.
32,000 deaths a year from driving in US.
500,000 deaths a year from cancer in US.
If it was me investing, I'd put my money into solving the cancer issue. Even if you can shave 5% off that death toll, you've already done more than eradicating cars would.
The problem is driverless cars sounds like awesome fun. Solving cancer is the harder problem.
I would be interested in seeing these numbers adjusted for age. My belief is that traffic accidents tend to kill younger people while cancer tends to kill older people. If I'm right, one car crash death would likely eliminate more potential years lived than many cancer deaths.
I mean, I'm not saying your point is invalid, or that trying to extend our lives by fighting the 'old age' diseases is without value, but I do think that the number of deaths does not tell the whole story.
I think that an important difference is that we already know how to solve the car problem, in terms of technology. We can't really say the same for curing cancer.
A valid analogy would be "N people die from someone dropping her knife, the knife bouncing on the floor and stabbing a nearby fellow restaurant customer in the chest". This doesnt' happen often, so we don't really feel the need for checks there. We do have automated systems to check food quality all the way from the farm to the consumer, though.
> it's freaking 2011, we are not supposed to be dependent on other' people's irresponsibility.
I cannot think of any implementation of society where this could possibly be true. If you really feel this way you need to find yourself a deserted island and become completely self-sufficient.
Googler or not, it is sad to see a life being taken away that could have been avoided.
It bothers me no end that by just following basic rules and safety mechanisms, so many lives could be saved, but we still hear the same tragic stories day in and day out.
I've been surrounded with tragic news of accidents last week and also bothered that I might be a victim with no fault of mine.
What's also sad is if it wasn't Steve Lacey or somebody in the industry this article would have probably been flagged and buried.
I too am bothered by the fact that I can be the best driver and never get into an accident only to be killed by some fool who never should be in a car in the first place.
Lacey was apparently the victim of road rage, and not the
intended victim, either. An imbecile (that authorities
believe had been drinking) smashed into him in pursuit of
another car.
If I were a journalist, I would not be employing terms like "imbecile"--especially not to refer to someone capable of road rage.
It's poor professionalism and poor writing, not poor self-preservation. I doubt that the writer is putting himself in danger by calling someone an imbecile.
I know it says BMW...but I can't really imagine getting killed by a car that's already slowed down enough due to rolling. Unless it was a convertible, then I can somewhat see it...but even then it's kinda hard to imagine as well
It's quite possible that the drunk who killed Steve Lacey may end up serving less jail time than Aaron Schwartz will for running a mass file download script. Perspectives on our law: mind blown, consistently.
Life is unfair. Unfortunately, there's not much you can say when these things happen. You just have to remember that any day can be your last, that you can't live life with any regrets. As for his wife, it'll take time to recover from this. Death is a part of life. It'll happen to everyone of us eventually.
