News: Random pedestrian selflessly gives life to forward science of autonomous cars.

[MidJack]

Operator of Self-Driving Uber Vehicle Is A Tranny With A Prior Felony Conviction For Armed Robbery

Vasquez has felony convictions for attempted armed robbery after plot with Blockbuster video store co-worker to seize their own shop's taking's at gunpoint

Vasquez was convicted under her original name Rafael but now identifies as a woman

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Felon-wheel-killer-self-driving-Uber-car.html

 

[Rush87]

One of the biggest joys I have in life is driving. In about 50 years time this forum will probably have datasheets like:

"How to drive a car for maximum pussy".

 

[king bast]

Its common in my city for drunk aborigines to stand in the middle of the road and challenge oncoming cars to a fight.

Everybody wants to just run them over but nobody ever does, our humanity stops us from doing so.

But the computer controlling driverless cars dont have this nagging humanity, and won't be loaded with the politically incorrect knowledge that warns us humans to be alert when they see abos loitering around the roadside, because theyre likely to do something stupid.

Because nobody else is stupid enough to pick fights with cars, abos will be disproportionately affected by the introduction of autonomous vehicles, so its almost a certainty that we will see autonomous vehicles being decried as "racist" in the not too distant future.

 

[fokker]

If Someone tells you that car Culture is evil,

they are Mainlining Soy.

Total Media Blackout on this.

Leonard, you're giving the average person too much credit. I think it's highly unlikely that most of people in society will be able to turn off their emotionally-driven side and take the same stance of statistical apathy that the corporations have.

I don't know if there is a globalist plan to ban private car ownership. But car culture is not our friend. Cars are inefficient and unfortunately most of the US/Canada/Australia have built their cities around cars instead of people. It's not the middle class that benefits, it's the oil, auto, insurance, and financial corporations.

The proper solution was to build dense, walkable cities with the primary mode of transportation for private individuals being subways, plus commuter trains that go into the suburbs. Europe and Asia have done a better job with that. In US/CA/AU, it's too late to fix the problem directly. Our cities developed around car culture and are now too expensive and spread out to properly implement rail transportation. Autonomous cars are just a solution to this problem. I'm not an AI fanboy but in this particular case it is the lesser evil compared to car culture.

As for this particular incident, look at it another way. As unethical as Uber has been in the past, it is in their interest to make sure their AI can avoid damage to the cars. That means pedestrians, other cars, walls, curbs, etc. In this particular case, it seems like the pedestrian came out of nowhere. Would it have been the same if it'd been a human driver?

http://archive.is/Ip3BW

“It’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode [autonomous or human-driven] based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway,” Moir told the paper, adding that the incident occurred roughly 100 yards from a crosswalk. “It is dangerous to cross roadways in the evening hour when well-illuminated managed crosswalks are available,” she said.

 

[churros]

I had really hoped I'd be long dead before the government ... forced me to use their wonderful self driving cars.

Remind me again how is the goverment involved in these private, entrepreneurial business ventures?

I suspect globalists will attempt to take away people's cars just like they want to take away guns.

Oh wait now the goverment wants to take the cars away. Which one is it?

 

[kamoz]

There's a huge elephant in the room, and how it is addressed when self-driving cars attempt to be implemented will be very telling. One word: liability.

We don't have all the details, but this case looks fairly clear-cut. Uber is at fault and lawyers will be lining up begging to take the case.

Imagine when there are thousands of these cars driving around built by various manufacturers. A software or hardware issue causes a hard over of the steering wheel and a 10-car pileup or plowing of pedestrians results. What then? Car manufacturers still face lawsuits on a regular basis, but not from your average accident since it's almost always driver error (or not that of the manufacturer).

Based on how this article was written, there will probably be attempts to shield manufacturers from liability. If it applies only to self-driving cars and not to other industries (quite likely) then that would be a dead giveaway to those of us that understand the existence of the deep state.

An example of one industry that was devastated by changes to (loosening of) liability laws in the early 1980s was general aviation. Once general aviation companies were opened up to being sued by anyone and their dog, these companies shut down left and right. After some band-aid regulations were made over subsequent decades to make it look like the government cared about personal aircraft ownership, these companies started producing airplanes again, but at exorbitant costs. You're looking at half a million to a million dollars for a new typical 4-6 seat personal airplane.

If self-driving car manufacturers are shielded from liability - and I don't see how their existence is possible without it - then the message is clear: freedom of transportation is on the way out. Affordable personal aircraft ownership is the pinnacle of this freedom. Personal car ownership is second. To you guys drinking the Kool-Aid, wake up.

 

[SamuelBRoberts]

There's a huge elephant in the room, and how it is addressed when self-driving cars attempt to be implemented will be very telling. One word: liability.

We don't have all the details, but this case looks fairly clear-cut. Uber is at fault and lawyers will be lining up begging to take the case.

Imagine when there are thousands of these cars driving around built by various manufacturers. A software or hardware issue causes a hard over of the steering wheel and a 10-car pileup or plowing of pedestrians results. What then? Car manufacturers still face lawsuits on a regular basis, but not from your average accident since it's almost always driver error (or not that of the manufacturer).

Based on how this article was written, there will probably be attempts to shield manufacturers from liability. If it applies only to self-driving cars and not to other industries (quite likely) then that would be a dead giveaway to those of us that understand the existence of the deep state.

An example of one industry that was devastated by changes to (loosening of) liability laws in the early 1980s was general aviation. Once general aviation companies were opened up to being sued by anyone and their dog, these companies shut down left and right. After some band-aid regulations were made over subsequent decades to make it look like the government cared about personal aircraft ownership, these companies started producing airplanes again, but at exorbitant costs. You're looking at half a million to a million dollars for a new typical 4-6 seat personal airplane.

If self-driving car manufacturers are shielded from liability - and I don't see how their existence is possible without it - then the message is clear: freedom of transportation is on the way out. Affordable personal aircraft ownership is the pinnacle of this freedom. Personal car ownership is second. To you guys drinking the Kool-Aid, wake up.

I think it's inevitable that it'll be handled the same way vaccines are handled: there'll be a fund and damages will be paid out of that fund. The companies making personal aircraft weren't buddy-buddy with the government, and they weren't doing hot fancy tech stuff for a nation that's crazy about hot fancy tech stuff.

Shame the deep state are such fags, because I'd love a self-driving car that would let me just get some stuff done on the way to work.

 

[Higgs Bosun]

I had really hoped I'd be long dead before the government ... forced me to use their wonderful self driving cars.

Remind me again how is the goverment involved in these private, entrepreneurial business ventures?

I suspect globalists will attempt to take away people's cars just like they want to take away guns.

Oh wait now the goverment wants to take the cars away. Which one is it?

Your trolling is lame as fuck. You are quoting two separate individuals, making your attempt to create the illusion of a contradiction completely nonsensical by that fact alone. Not only that, but it's obvious that the first person was talking about forcing the use of autonomous cars while the second person was talking about the banning of non-autonomous cars, which are actions that are complementary to each other rather than contradictory. But by all means keep that soy flowing.

 

[kamoz]

I think it's inevitable that it'll be handled the same way vaccines are handled: there'll be a fund and damages will be paid out of that fund. The companies making personal aircraft weren't buddy-buddy with the government, and they weren't doing hot fancy tech stuff for a nation that's crazy about hot fancy tech stuff.

Shame the deep state are such fags, because I'd love a self-driving car that would let me just get some stuff done on the way to work.

Good point with the comparison to vaccines.

As for personal aircraft being fancy tech, they absolutely were then and even now. General aviation started to boom in the 1950s on the heels of WWII - upper middle class and even middle class people had access to airplanes that were essentially mini versions of modern fighter planes (without the guns of course). It would be the equivalent today of someone making $75,000 salary being able to afford a 6-seat single engine jet. But that sort of freedom has no place in the deep state's plans.

It's become pretty clear that one of the deep state's methods to advance their agenda is by massaging various laws, especially liability laws. Bringing up vaccines makes you think about other things as well....like smartphones or other similar devices. There's been talk here and elsewhere of the possibility that they decrease sperm count, cause cancer, and can damage your eyes (early onset macular degeneration). With all the talk on the MSM about getting small kids off of these devices, it makes me wonder what's going on there as well.

 

[Simeon_Strangelight]

There's a huge elephant in the room, and how it is addressed when self-driving cars attempt to be implemented will be very telling. One word: liability.

We don't have all the details, but this case looks fairly clear-cut. Uber is at fault and lawyers will be lining up begging to take the case.

Imagine when there are thousands of these cars driving around built by various manufacturers. A software or hardware issue causes a hard over of the steering wheel and a 10-car pileup or plowing of pedestrians results. What then? Car manufacturers still face lawsuits on a regular basis, but not from your average accident since it's almost always driver error (or not that of the manufacturer).

They can deal with liability the same way they dealt with vaccine case damages. Make damages incurred by vaccines exempt from normal rule of law and create a special fund that is much easier to control and does not run through the court system.

They will simply argue that self-driving cars are much safer than human driven ones, but that unfortunate accidents happen and endanger the viability of the future. Thus your average automated accident and mayhem will end up in a fake court just like the vaccine cases end up in theirs.

Just saw that others have the same idea, but the truth of the matter is that the vaccine damage fund is hard to tap into even if both your daughters get brain damage 2-3 weeks after a vaccine, they will still try to plead coincidence. This will not be a normal lawsuit, but more a modern university rape kangaroo court.

 

[SamuelBRoberts]

Just saw that others have the same idea, but the truth of the matter is that the vaccine damage fund is hard to tap into even if both your daughters get brain damage 2-3 weeks after a vaccine, they will still try to plead coincidence. This will not be a normal lawsuit, but more a modern university rape kangaroo court.

The link between vaccines and brain cancer is a little harder to prove than say, the link between my broken leg and that video of me being run over by an autonomous truck.
The payouts won't be a big issue, these things are really safe (Far safer than a human driver, especially given their massive array of sensors that give them far better visibility than a human has) and Uber, et. al. can easily afford to pay what amounts to insurance.

 

[Belgrano]

An example of one industry that was devastated by changes to (loosening of) liability laws in the early 1980s was general aviation. Once general aviation companies were opened up to being sued by anyone and their dog, these companies shut down left and right. After some band-aid regulations were made over subsequent decades to make it look like the government cared about personal aircraft ownership, these companies started producing airplanes again, but at exorbitant costs. You're looking at half a million to a million dollars for a new typical 4-6 seat personal airplane.

As for personal aircraft being fancy tech, they absolutely were then and even now. General aviation started to boom in the 1950s on the heels of WWII - upper middle class and even middle class people had access to airplanes that were essentially mini versions of modern fighter planes (without the guns of course). It would be the equivalent today of someone making $75,000 salary being able to afford a 6-seat single engine jet. But that sort of freedom has no place in the deep state's plans.

Wait, what?
Airplanes were affordable to your average middle class guy in the past?
I've never heard about that before.
Are we talking about buying, maintaining and regularly using one?

:huh:

 

[Mage]

The arguments for shared public cars remind me communist arguments about shared flats or so called communal flats. They were Soviet experiment where multiple families lived in the same flat. Each family had one, maybe two separate rooms where both parents and children shared the same room and all 3 -5 families or unrelated individuals living in the flat shared common kitchen and bathroom.

The arguments were similar - it's not rational and cost-effective to have a car/kitchen/bathroom stand idle for a long time, why not let people hare it? Some communal flats were the big flats of rich people spent to gulag divided to several families, while others were specifically constructed like that.

The ones constructed like that had thin walls so neighbors could overhear each other and snitch on the neighbors who said something bad about the party or state or comrade Stalin. These thin walls were the best alternative in times when video and audio spying technology was only in its infancy.

Communal flat inhabitants faced many problems unimaginable to western people - imagine sharing your kitchen with an alcoholic who vomits there or is sitting in a corner ogling your wife's ass and hitting on her. Imagine waiting in long lines to have a shower or take a piss. Imagine some alcoholic neighbor fed up with waiting and taking a shit at the common corridor that unites the rooms. Imagine children being repressed and shouted down for playing loud because some other guy with a night shift wants to sleep. Imagine everyone knowing about your sex life. Imagine having to deal with the smell of cats some cat lady feeds in he room next to you or with an angry dog some neighbor keeps that tries to take a bite off your children. Imagine some neighbor constantly stealing your food, claiming he just borrowed it but never actually giving it back. Imagine someone very concerned about your shared bill for utilities and shouting on you for not turning off lighting in the common areas or showering too often. Depending on the people you get to live with it was always a lesser or greater hell. And typically you always got at least one alcoholic and at least one grumpy and slow old person and at least one family with loud and obnoxious children living with you, statistically it was inevitable.

I remember in my childhood some of my relatives still lived in a flat like that as they were all over the Soviet Union and when we went visiting them I was being told by my parents to greet those other scary looking alcoholics who lived there but to not engage them further.

https://understandrussia.com/communal-flats/

Shared cars may not be as bad, because we still spend less time in our cars as we spend in our homes, but it is still a very communist thing to force people to share cars and may be a first step for more drastic urbanization attempts like a return to shared flats that in case of a western world would be more diverse then anything under the majority white Soviet Union. Imagine a living space shared by let's say a devout Muslim family, some junkies, some old people at retirement age, a white family with two children and some feminist cat lady. As immigration grows and urbanization intensifies I don't rule out such a possibility. Is it not already implied in countries like Sweden to be a good thing to give some of your living space to migrants? It might pretty easily turn into a forced thing once there become too many of them and the natives cannot keep up the construction of new residential buildings.

Same thing with these public autonomous cars - imagine you calling a car assigning your route in the phone - you get in the car, but some seats are still left free, when all the sudden in the middle of your trip the car stops to take some more passengers who have assigned the same route - you now share a tiny space with a total stranger who might be drunk, might be a rapist, might be a smelly hobo. At least in a metro or in a bus you have other people acting as witnesses and possible protectors, but in a small car with 4-8 seats a diverse occupancy is a trouble in the making.

 

[Leonard D Neubache]

...

Wait, what?
Airplanes were affordable to your average middle class guy in the past?
I've never heard about that before.
Are we talking about buying, maintaining and regularly using one?

:huh:

A simple airplane is in many way less complicated than a car.

The important difference to consider is obviously that if you buy a cheap car you end up stuck on the side of the road. If you buy a cheap aeroplane...

Ergo, no more cheap aeroplanes.

 

[Thomas More]

An example of one industry that was devastated by changes to (loosening of) liability laws in the early 1980s was general aviation. Once general aviation companies were opened up to being sued by anyone and their dog, these companies shut down left and right. After some band-aid regulations were made over subsequent decades to make it look like the government cared about personal aircraft ownership, these companies started producing airplanes again, but at exorbitant costs. You're looking at half a million to a million dollars for a new typical 4-6 seat personal airplane.

As for personal aircraft being fancy tech, they absolutely were then and even now. General aviation started to boom in the 1950s on the heels of WWII - upper middle class and even middle class people had access to airplanes that were essentially mini versions of modern fighter planes (without the guns of course). It would be the equivalent today of someone making $75,000 salary being able to afford a 6-seat single engine jet. But that sort of freedom has no place in the deep state's plans.

Wait, what?
Airplanes were affordable to your average middle class guy in the past?
I've never heard about that before.
Are we talking about buying, maintaining and regularly using one?

:huh:

He said upper middle class or even middle class. Obviously middle class is a range, and he's not talking about the bottom rung.

My boss owns a plane, and since our work is somewhat related, he likes to hire other pilots when he can. I have one other coworker that owns a plane as well. You could own a used plane, and pay for maintenance, storage and insurance for about $20,000 a year. Plenty of middle class people have hobbies in this price range, such as drag racing cars, highly customized rock crawlers or mud boggers, base jumping around the world, or boats. I know people who do all these things.

A lot of people on this site spend that kind of money traveling as often as possible. Hobbies like this, including flying, are expensive, but if a person is motivated, they can work hard to get the money, and make it happen.

 

[Simeon_Strangelight]

You can get ultralight planes for 10.000$ used and 20.000$ new.

Small planes can be had really on the cheap.

 

[Ski pro]

It’s amazing how urban centric all the reporting is on this.

You can see the typical typist who makes articles like this tapping away thinking ‘oh in a few years I’ll be able to call an Uber on my smartphone and the car will come and it will be self driving and I’ll be able to drink my soy latte on the way to the office while getting some work done’

Not everyone lives in a city, I’d like to see how the AI would deal with winter here, when you can’t see the edges or markings on the road for snow, someone like me who needs to rock up with 3 pairs of skis, poles and gates and drills. Not to mention black ice and snowdrifts.

Hold on to your cars and trucks gents, learn how to fix them because as sure as shit, the city focussed crowd don’t think you should have them and will take steps to ensure you can’t have them any more.

 

[Aurini]

One of my favourite things in the world is to be driving down the highway, open road, my tunes playing on the radio, smoking a cigarette, and drinking a coffee I bought at the drive through. Trunk full of tools, spare clothing, weapons, first aid, and anything else I think I might need.

Will I be allowed to do that with these wonderful, autonomous vehicles?

 

[questor70]

I, personally, do not get the knee-jerk fearmongering over "them" taking away personal car ownership.

That being said, driving a car is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT. And a great many drivers on the road should have their licenses revoked because they are texting, drunk, sleepy, or are so old that their reaction-time is shot.

Autonomous cars may freak some people out but they are not subject to these human frailties. They don't drink, don't get tired and doze off at 3AM, and don't accelerate when they meant to slow down.

I should not have to fill this thread of stories of old folks plowing into crowded streetcorners full of pedestrians because they jammed the gas instead of the brake pedal, for instance. That's another goodie that happened in my area not that long ago.

Those who are treating car ownership as equivalent to the 2nd amendment are really off-base.

 

[Mage]

That being said, driving a car is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT. And a great many drivers on the road should have their licenses revoked because they are texting, drunk, sleepy, or are so old that their reaction-time is shot.

By recognizing something as a privilege you also recognize a power of other people to give or revoke that privilege to you as they see fit. It's a passive and subordinate position you are willingly taking.

Sure some regulations are necessary, just like with guns, to filter out those unfit to drive a car. And for most part these regulations already exist for both cars and guns.

If you see trough leftist rhetoric and agree that mass shootings are caused primarily by single-parent homes and drugs and sexual frustration not guns then you must also see that car accidents are not caused as much by cars but by other factors and you must try to remove those other factors first. Add periodic reaction time exams for drivers, that become more often the for old people. Reduce drug and alcohol consumption. Stand against the phone culture and texting. But you the problem is weak individuals love their phones more then their cars and their guns. How about you address that issue first?


Why not ban alcohol and phones instead of guns and cars? What do you love more? The answer to this question shows your true self and it shows the nature of our society who would rather keep their sweep escapism technologies rather then the technologies that empower individuals.

I am not really suggesting banning alcohol and phones, but you must think what do you love more in life? What person would you rather be - a car person, a gun person, a phone person, an alcohol person? What our society values most and what do the proposed technological advances tell about our society?

The argument that you will have more time to text safely in your autonomous car seems so petty and miserable to me. Look modern people are glued to their phones already and they want to sacrifice one of the few things that put them in control over something real for more virtual reality time? You can''t get more pathetic than that.

I can tell one thin about me - I NEVER drink because I just love driving so much. Some people hate being the designated driver but I love it. It make me always useful and in control of all the group of drunken party. My car, my driving my rules. I am always ready and prepared to drive be it an emergency situation or late night booty call or anything in between. I am always in control in my life and of my location. Should I abandon that for ruined health and fuzzy consciousness? Would I abandon that freedom for some more time in social media or texting? Of course not. I will always pity people who love these things more then freedom and having control over yourself and your surroundings. And I will be doing what I can to no t surrender the future to people with value and pleasure system that is opposite to mine, to people whom I consider to be pitiful.

What if someone told you that drinking alcohol is not a right but a privilege? Alcohol related deaths are extremely common too - domestic violence, liver problems, people losing homes, freezing on streets, falling over bridges, drunken fights - why not sell alcohol only to people who pass a psychiatric test and prove they can drink responsibly?

What if someone told you that using phone is not a right but a privilege? So many people die trying to take dangerous selfies. So many photos of naked people, child porn and revenge porn is being circulated trough phones. Why not ban phones? Or make regulations to test people's psychological health before they can get a phone?

There is a single reason why or society considers banning or reducing guns and cars, but not alcohol or phones. Because our society is weak and sick and loves their sins and their escapism more then virtues and freedom. Because most people love slavery and despise freedom. Now you think on which side of these things you are and what do you love more and what kind of a person that makes you?