111–120 of 460 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> every ICE vehicle feels painfully sluggish and slow. You don't do much towing, do you?
99.9% of drivers will never tow anything in their life.
I think you've just made that up; however, I am willing to stipulate that 99.9% of Hacker News posters will never tow anything. I always forget how out of touch the audience here is.
I wonder what percentage are autopilot driving into things?
By definition, if the autopilot has disengaged it’s a more dangerous situation, so it is fair to place the blame on it. A relief pitcher doesn’t get charged with earned runs he inherits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a lot of people would be happy to use it if it was convenient and reliable. I live in NYC and haven’t had to drive to/from work in over a decade. I consider the subway ride a vast, vast improvement over driving… but only when the subway works right.
The vast majority of people I talk to, including myself, don't use public transportation for: 1. Time. For example, my commute is 25 minutes, but 2 hours ride and three mile walk by public transport. 2. Safety, intimately tied to the homeless problem. 3. Cleanliness. In my experience, related to #2, and the fact that government institutions are incapable of caring about user experience, because they get funding regar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and loaded with features "Ludicrous mode." > the top killer of drivers are trees on the side of the road. It's actually alcohol and drugs. Which is the reason those drivers find themselves in the trees.
[flagged]
The data is really easy to get. I wish more people would avail themselves of it.
In a big picture, this makes sense. You can load the cars with safety features, but it doesn't change the fact that these cars are very heavy, very fast, and loaded with features that reward distracted driving. In the US at least, the top killer of drivers are trees on the side of the road.
Tesla - autopilot that really isn't, gets fooled in many situations, driver lulled into not paying attention, can't react quickly enough when the computer bails, and ends up driving into a bridge abutment at 75mph.
Kia - cheap cars built to minimum safety standards driven by young people who aren't very experienced drivers.
Buick - cars driven by geriatrics whose declines in vision and reaction speed probably should have resulted in their licenses being revoked five years ago but who still insist on driving themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can load the cars with safety features, but it doesn't change the fact that these cars are very heavy Being heavy is actually a safety feature of sort (but just for the people inside the car, it increases overall fatality).
Trees are anchored to the ground. Being heavier just reduces your ability to stop.
I thoroughyl expect the Deparment of Government Efficiency to recommend U.S. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) be shut down to save previous taxpayer dollars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and loaded with features "Ludicrous mode." > the top killer of drivers are trees on the side of the road. It's actually alcohol and drugs. Which is the reason those drivers find themselves in the trees.
[flagged]
It's just a little funny you think California is unique in this regard. Pretty much all of the US is extremely underdeveloped when it comes to public transportation. Hillbillies in the boonies have to drive a lot too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We really need to get serious about improving our transportation infrastructure. Better yet, we really need to consider urbanization. That way everything you need is right there by your own two feet. No need for any extra special transportation at all. It seems people have a burning desire to live the rural lifestyle, though, even in so-called cities. I'm not sure we can actually overcome that pressure.
Many of us simply don't want to live in expensive urbanized environments (especially in more desirable ones)--at least at many points in our lives, so yeah no.