If you want to know who rules over you, ask who you are not allowed to crash into.
Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash
201–205 of 205 posts
Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
A human driver killed a 4-year girl and her mother this week. How many 4-year olds has Cruise killed? My point is that picking false equivalencies and anecdotal evidence doesn't work, in both directions.
In fairness, cruise is smart enough to not even attempt to unleash their cars on areas challenging enough to cause the death of a 4yo. If they did, who knows what would happen.
It was by 4th and king station right? Cruise cars drive there all the time.
https://abc7news.com/san-francisco-king-st-crash-driver-arre...
Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would we do that?
Because nowadays cars are computers on wheels with lots of sensors, so we don’t need to only rely on human ears and brains like we had to in 1950s. I think modernizing traffic signals will end up making transportation more efficient and safer. (Just imagine knowing the timing of the next 5 traffic lights on your path.)
This would make roads undrivable by human drivers (unless augmented by modern tech). Probably exactly what you had in mind, but I don't want this future (at least not now)
Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
A human driver killed a 4-year girl and her mother this week. How many 4-year olds has Cruise killed? My point is that picking false equivalencies and anecdotal evidence doesn't work, in both directions.
In fairness, cruise is smart enough to not even attempt to unleash their cars on areas challenging enough to cause the death of a 4yo. If they did, who knows what would happen.
Huh? Cruise were given street permits long ago.
Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I understand. You hate poor people.
Er, no, not in the least. Where do you get that from? Maybe something along the following lines: 1. Everyone hates either rich people or poor people. 2. I didn't get outraged at one particular thing some rich people are alleged to have done, therefore I don't hate rich people. 3. Therefore I hate poor people. The only thing wrong with this argument is every part of it , so I hope you mean something more reasonable. B…
You admit that most people won't have the money to retain their cars, thus they will lose the greatest tool for individual travel ever. So you want to force poor people to be stuck in their current location regardless of how safe it is, and how much opportunity it has.