Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

davidthegnome

(2,983 posts)
13. Not sure if I accurately understand your point.
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 07:27 PM
Mar 2016

Are you suggesting that we need more, rather than less human involvement with our vehicles? I mean - that we should be driving cars ourselves rather than allowing technology to do so for us?

Also, in regards to the resource suck:

"A recent report by the Intelligent Transportation Society of America projects that so-called intelligent transportation systems (ITS) could achieve a 2 to 4 percent reduction in oil consumption and related greenhouse gas emissions each year over the next 10 years as these technologies percolate into the market."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/self-driving-cars-could-cut-greenhouse-gas-pollution/


No offense or disrespect intended - but this technology is there to be used. If it can make life easier, better, more comfortable and so on - in addition to possibly significantly reducing oil consumption and related greenhouse gas emissions... why not take full advantage of it?

I understand that lots of people don't trust the self driving cars for various reasons, but the technology itself is, I think, pretty incredible. There is great potential here to do good things not just for the human race, but for the planet as well.

Wow -- a minor fender-bender causes this overreaction nichomachus Mar 2016 #1
It's not an overreaction, it's reality catching up to the hype. nt bananas Mar 2016 #2
Still far far far fewer at fault accidents per mile than human drivers whatthehey Mar 2016 #22
The last analysis I saw showed that they were involved in accidents at a higher rate. Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #27
Prediction: sofa king Mar 2016 #4
From my understanding... davidthegnome Mar 2016 #3
Facts will never overcome the pearl clutching nt nichomachus Mar 2016 #6
No, the statistics show they are more prone to accidents than humans. bananas Mar 2016 #9
My mistake, I think. davidthegnome Mar 2016 #12
What data so you have that shows them AT FAULT more than human drivers? whatthehey Mar 2016 #23
None. davidthegnome Mar 2016 #24
These vehicles do nothing to bring life back to a human scale. HuckleB Mar 2016 #5
Not sure if I accurately understand your point. davidthegnome Mar 2016 #13
If we chose to create lives that need lengthy daily commutes... HuckleB Mar 2016 #16
People aremoving to huge metro centers because that's hedgehog Mar 2016 #21
That's a smart growth and transit-oriented-development issue...not a personal-automotive one Chan790 Mar 2016 #25
Another of Google's noble and useful contributions chapdrum Mar 2016 #7
And how is this surprising? DCBob Mar 2016 #8
Autonomous vehicles will be available sooner, rather than later. Paladin Mar 2016 #10
Engineering hype houston16revival Mar 2016 #11
Your digital watch has more computing power than the Apollo computer. rickford66 Mar 2016 #14
Uhm, that came true, several times since then... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #15
Also, Raspberry Pi and Arduino. Chan790 Mar 2016 #26
So many possibilities, thinking about making my nephew a retrogame console... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #28
Subtle sarcasm? PersonNumber503602 Mar 2016 #19
Anyone who thinks that their 11-year old son will not need to get a drivers license is delusional. Nye Bevan Mar 2016 #17
I wouldn't so quickly dismiss the possibility. ohnoyoudidnt Mar 2016 #18
I tested a Tesla with autopilot last week 47of74 Mar 2016 #20
St. Louis sucks at marking lanes, period, hell when it rains or snows, everyone... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #29
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Google’s bus crash is cha...»Reply #13