Tesla on autopilot rear ends motorcycle on freeway, killing rider • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla on autopilot rear ends motorcycle on freeway, killing rider

#151

Post by woodruffw » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 3:12 PM UTC

pandaman wrote: post #146

woodruffw wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a sensible response: it’s not a matter of whether you can avoid visiting the convenience store, because millions of people do . There’s a clear demand for it, and accompanying crime. (Besides, in most bus networks you actually can use the buses without using the stations — most allow riders to be dropped off anywhere along the route. But that’s entirely besides the point, as you haven’t presented a lick o…

I can see how it can be confusing: you argue that transit is safe insisting that any crime happening around the transit use is irrelevant. You get mugged walking out of the station because that's where criminals expect solid foot traffic? Not transit fault, even though there is no way to avoid this situation while using transit. On the other hand, convenience stores on gas stations, where most crime is happening agai…

That's up to you. I've laid out the numbers; statistically speaking, public transit is safer on both axes of accidents and crime. Including adjacent areas of society makes no sense unless we do the same for alternate modes of transportation, at which point the trend continues.

Re: Tesla on autopilot rear ends motorcycle on freeway, killing rider

#152

Post by jgwil2 » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 3:37 PM UTC

josephcsible wrote: post #145

jgwil2 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly, your comment completely ignores the negative externalities created by North American-style suburbs in the first place. Secondly, this is still a strawman: I've yet to hear of any policy proposal that would abolish zoning completely and allow highrises to go up anywhere. What policies would do is things like let the market determine whether it's more efficient to build a McMansion for one family or a fourplex…

> But if you still hate this so much, you can live far enough from the city that it's not economical to build next door to you, or you can own enough land that it won't be an issue. So you can avoid the problems by either accepting a commute that's 2 hours each way (and for which public transit is all but guaranteed to be unavailable), or by being rich.

The current system only works for people who already own property in inner suburbs with low density and short commutes. Obviously that does not scale.

Increasing density should both reduce commute times and lower housing costs. But there does have to be a tradeoff, and each individual or family can make that decision for themselves.

Re: Tesla on autopilot rear ends motorcycle on freeway, killing rider

#153

Post by jgwil2 » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 3:45 PM UTC

pandaman wrote: post #147

jgwil2 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly, your comment completely ignores the negative externalities created by North American-style suburbs in the first place. Secondly, this is still a strawman: I've yet to hear of any policy proposal that would abolish zoning completely and allow highrises to go up anywhere. What policies would do is things like let the market determine whether it's more efficient to build a McMansion for one family or a fourplex…

Curious: in your vision, what are negative externalities that you have in mind and how are they going to disappear with more dense living in the very same suburbs?

Environmental damage and the housing affordability crisis. I expect the first would be mitigated by increasing density in inner suburbs, thus creating shorter commutes with better transit options, leading to lower carbon emissions and slowing the spread of exurban sprawl (leaving more land for nature preserves and agriculture), and the second by increasing the housing supply.

Re: Tesla on autopilot rear ends motorcycle on freeway, killing rider

#154

Post by pandaman » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 4:09 PM UTC

jgwil2 wrote: post #153

pandaman wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious: in your vision, what are negative externalities that you have in mind and how are they going to disappear with more dense living in the very same suburbs?

Environmental damage and the housing affordability crisis. I expect the first would be mitigated by increasing density in inner suburbs, thus creating shorter commutes with better transit options, leading to lower carbon emissions and slowing the spread of exurban sprawl (leaving more land for nature preserves and agriculture), and the second by increasing the housing supply.

But if you still hate this so much, you can live far enough from the city that it's not economical to build next door to you, or you can own enough land that it won't be an issue.

It appears that couple hours ago you did not count either as a negative externality, are you sure you are arguing in a good faith?

Re: Tesla on autopilot rear ends motorcycle on freeway, killing rider

#155

Post by silisili » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 4:26 PM UTC

parkingrift wrote: post #133

silisili wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could do a hub and spoke model, probably. Basically, move the parking lots out of the businesses and into the exurbs. It's not perfect, but would mean a lot less miles driven for most people.

In this model people would still need cars. If people have a car they will prefer to use it. This hub and spoke would only work if you forced people to use it.

True - which is why we also must work to remove parking lots from the city centers and businesses. People aren't going to drive if there's nowhere for them to park!

That said, I'm not advocating for tearing down an entire city and starting over. This would have to be done slowly over many years, which means politically - it will never get done.

Re: Tesla on autopilot rear ends motorcycle on freeway, killing rider

#156

Post by jgwil2 » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 4:42 PM UTC

pandaman wrote: post #154

jgwil2 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Environmental damage and the housing affordability crisis. I expect the first would be mitigated by increasing density in inner suburbs, thus creating shorter commutes with better transit options, leading to lower carbon emissions and slowing the spread of exurban sprawl (leaving more land for nature preserves and agriculture), and the second by increasing the housing supply.

But if you still hate this so much, you can live far enough from the city that it's not economical to build next door to you, or you can own enough land that it won't be an issue. It appears that couple hours ago you did not count either as a negative externality, are you sure you are arguing in a good faith?

I'm not telling you that you can't live in the country if you prefer that lifestyle. I am saying that you shouldn't be able to dictate the level of density in your current neighborhood just because you are afraid of loud neighbors or you want to create artificial scarcity to inflate the value of your home.

Re: Tesla on autopilot rear ends motorcycle on freeway, killing rider

#157

Post by GenerocUsername » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 5:03 PM UTC

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #139

shepherdjerred wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree, but the reality is that if you don't have a car then you won't be able to easily commute in most cities. I'd love for this to change, but a few individuals choosing to suffer by not having a car isn't going to help anything.

Maybe individualism is the root of the problem?

Socialist hands types this

Re: Tesla on autopilot rear ends motorcycle on freeway, killing rider

#158

Post by GenerocUsername » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 5:04 PM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #97

0xedd wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hah! I see propaganda has captured you nicely. Cancel culture cuisine; it's enough to claim someone is guilty to indict him. It's his responsibility to prove innocence! A tangent; Tesla did show their self driving is safe. Doesn't mean it has no bugs.

Must be a new definition of "safe": kills drivers, passengers, motorcyclists, people in other cars. Accelerates at concrete freeway barriers. Steers into cars parked off the road.

Yeah because car accidents didn't exist until Musk came along. Get real. Show stats of accidents per 100k miles or gtfo

Re: Tesla on autopilot rear ends motorcycle on freeway, killing rider

#159

Post by skybrian » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 5:07 PM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #100

skybrian wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Examples: In California, $10 billion so far has been spent on high speed rail. The new bus terminal in SF was $2 billion, though admittedly that includes a skyscraper and a park. The Bart extension to Milpitas cost another $2 billion. In Manhattan the first phase of the second avenue line cost $4.5 billion and the second phase will cost $6 billion.

> " (wholly-legal urban tunnel fraud aside) " As I said. It is usually best to read what you reply to.

Yes, I ignored that on purpose because it doesn't make sense.

I'm reminded of Abraham Lincoln's joke: "How many legs does a dog have, if you count the tail as a leg?"

The money counts as spending, even if you say it doesn't.

Re: Tesla on autopilot rear ends motorcycle on freeway, killing rider

#160

Post by ncmncm » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 5:38 PM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #159

ncmncm wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " (wholly-legal urban tunnel fraud aside) " As I said. It is usually best to read what you reply to.

Yes, I ignored that on purpose because it doesn't make sense. I'm reminded of Abraham Lincoln's joke: "How many legs does a dog have, if you count the tail as a leg?" The money counts as spending, even if you say it doesn't.

It is not spent on transportation, it is spent on something else, and deducted from the transportation budget. If somebody steals your wallet and uses your card to buy an NFT, did you spend that? It came from your account.