I listed the first three that popped up as a result of a Google search. Since it's a very common search engine, those are the stories that will often be seen first by people searching for it.
Right. So does AP, AFP, BBC, Reuters and NPR. NBC, ABC and CBS provide more popular content. CNN tends more towards infotainment/spectacle and FOX tends towards political propaganda. Every source has their own audience and own agenda.Furthermore, business papers are exceptional in the media biz. They tend to be far more objective.
Sounds like you might be imposing your own biases on the news you are reading; seeing what you want to see.Further, headlines and a few quotes don't reveal the sum effect. I've seen unnecessary and less than fully relevant character attacks on the pedestrian and now the "monitor-driver" in nearly every article I've read.
Are you kidding me? Obesity contributes to heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. The problem might be as much as ten times as large as car fatalities depending oh how you want to factor the degree to which obesity and related behaviors contribute to the problem. And that doesn't factor the number of car related deaths from the additional vehicle miles for food delivery and grocery shopping. ;^)LockH wrote: ↑Mar 23, 2018 10:50 amA total of 37,461 people died in 2016. That is 1.18 persons per one million miles traveled
It's 1.18 fatalities per hundred-million miles
... or 102+ persons killed each day... in the USA alone... (Never mind other countries...) And injuries and property damages? (Like, how many suffer from being "overweight"...)
The numbers are historically quite low per the wiki link you've provided. So comparatively, I can see why there is no general outcry.kerim wrote: ↑Mar 23, 2018 7:06 amHere are some statistics about deaths in traffic in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_veh ... S._by_year
It is surprising that numbers are not coming down but look fairly constant despite joint efforts to make traffic safer. A total of 37,461 people died in 2016. That is 1.18 persons per one million miles traveled and 11.59 people per 100,000 inhabitants. Is it not remarkable how socially acceptable these numbers seem? Or are you aware of any outcry?<snip>
in that clipPunx0r wrote: ↑Mar 23, 2018 3:34 amShe certainly did herself no favours wearing dark clothing and if she failed to properly judge the speed of traffic, but the car driver carries the greater responsibility to avoid such a collision. If you follow the driving maxim that you should drive at a speed where you can safely stop in the distance you know to be clear, then the car is 100% at fault. The woman didn't unexpectedly step off a kerb as the car was passing
That's a moving violation called "driving too fast for conditions", or IMO reckless driving. These sorts of tragedies are the side effect of allowing traffic to move at deadly speeds where people are present. We don't have to allow it, the first cars were prohibited from doing it, and I will move to the first halfway decent American city that develops the moral fiber to prohibit it again.dogman dan wrote: ↑Mar 26, 2018 7:45 amIMO, this particular incident had little to do with self driving car. I don't agree that most people would have stopped or swerved in time. Some would, but many would have just braked hard, still hitting the ped. Quite possibly not fatal then, but maybe so. But the bottom line is the cars lane was clear till the last second, giving the car no reason to think it must stop. The hard thing for self driving cars, or human operators too, is anticipating that some person will really be that stupid.
FLIR works only when the temperature of the object is different from the background temperature. On a road shortly after sunset that would likely not be the case. Later at night it would be.
Why is anything the ped does even at issue? Remove the hazard and the peds can walk and listen however they want-- they're not threatening anybody. On the other hand, the car driver going 40mph next to a sidewalk (or e-biker going 30mph next to a sidewalk) is sooner or later going to hurt somebody no matter what he or she does to avoid it.
In the case of the child, no, the child's parents would be at fault for letting their child play on a road/freeway (or a railway, or a bike path, or a runway.) Same goes for an animal; it is the animal's owner that would be at fault.
How unfortunate that you didn't read my post before replying to it. It must be difficult for you to communicate with people on line using that approach.
That balance of responsibility only works if the non-lethal road users have some say over whether others get to be lethal road users. They don't have a say in it, so the burden must lie with the self-centered dickholes who think risking others' lives for their momentary convenience is acceptable.
Of course they do. They can vote directly for ballot measures that shut down roads to vehicles, and can vote in legislators who will ban cars, or who will make the selection process for drivers much tougher.
poor little robocar iz a victim too only doing as its told.
yeah well he's kickin it eco mode too.Alan B wrote:Clearly the driver monitoring the self driving car was not monitoring very closely. If their purpose is to take over in an emergency their alertness was inadequate.
That kind of democracy only works when you don't have 95% of the people born into and indoctrinated as road pirates.billvon wrote: ↑Mar 26, 2018 6:30 pmOf course they do. They can vote directly for ballot measures that shut down roads to vehicles, and can vote in legislators who will ban cars, or who will make the selection process for drivers much tougher.