'Americans are right not to trust self-driving cars'


The idiots here have no clue what a yield sign means.


We solved the yield sign in MD by taking them out. There are still a few, but many disappeared. When two lanes merge into one, the driver farthest ahead goes first, then the car in the other lane merges in.


Can I guess that often the result is a running start drag race for the merge? Which doesn’t sound any safer than the yield signs.


I see this routinely too.
And when an accident happens, it was always “the other guy’s fault”.

Whereas I see this so often, I sometimes wonder how many times I would have been slammed into if I didn’t take the moment to look for it before going forward when my light turns green. There may be many accidents that didn’t happen solely because I looked.


“But officer I yeild as loud as I could, I guess he didn’t hear me!”


Aggressive cut-offs rarely occur. I use one of these merges on the way home from work every day. Almost everyone is courteous enough to let the car in front go first. It is more likely to happen when a highway entrance ramp and exit ramp share the same lane under a bridge. Even then, though, fighting for position rarely happens. It has been years since someone entering the highway at a cloverleaf wanted to drag race me as I tried to get off.


How many stop lights do they have when it isn’t raining?


Haha You got me on that one.


I just noticed some sobering trends that make me look forward to more self-driving cars in the future (NHTSA figures):

  • 37,461 people were killed in crashes on U.S. roadways last year, a 5.6 percent increase over 2015, or nearly 2,000 more deaths.
  • Both the number of passenger vehicle fatalities and motorcycle deaths were at their highest level since 2008.
  • Van occupants were hard-hit, literally. Their death rate rose 8.4 percent.
  • Pedestrian fatalities rose by almost 500, a 9 percent increase, and are at their highest level since 1990.
  • Bicyclists’ death toll was the highest since 1991.

I sure wouldn’t want to be in the position of defending the status quo with trends like these.


I prefer that too, but I find it is far too rare on public roads for me to count on.


The real definition of “fascism” includes the following critical elements:

  • Government control of the news media used to suppress criticism of the government - We’re a long way from this. The Fourth Estate seems to be maintaining its independence, much to the chagrin of the POTUS.

  • Unchecked centralized totalitarian government - We’re also a long way from this. The Congress and SCOTUS are still intact and functioning.

Without these two elements, whatever you’re describing might be undemocratic, but it isn’t fascism.


The media is overwhelmingly slanted to the left and as such suppresses their criticism of their favored party government and is overly critical of their disfavored party. Before the birth of conservative talk radio and later cable news and now internet news, there was no “other viewpoint” in the media. Call it “government complicit” rather than government controlled. in the last few decades we’ve had alternate views on radio, cable tv and the internet so that is going in the right direction while the left is trying very hard to control the right wing media with government regulation. So to summarize, the left HAD control of the media and lost it so they are trying very hard to regain that control via government intervention. That’s pretty fascist, IMHO.

Virtually all causes championed by the left are government solutions, oversight or regulation to solve the ills of society. Making something illegal, just because the someone feels it is harmful and you must be forced to do so because you are too ignorant to do it on your own. I.e., a few are very bad at driving so we must ban all manually operated cars for the good of all. Massive regulation over the last few decades has essentially granted control over nearly everything we do to the government. The centralized federal government. The states lose more of their control every single day with every regulation passed not by Congress but by bureaucratic fiat by unelected government employees. This is far closer to fascism than our founders conceived.

As for the SCOTUS it appears that the left packs it with activist jurists while the right packs it with constitutionalists. I don’t think anyone believes the court is not politicized because it clearly is. Right now, the left is incensed that another Conservative was appointed while the right was sweating bullets about the last president appointing another left leaning activist. Each side recognizes the value in packing their favorite ideology onto the court.

Academics always seem to focus on the nationalist traits of fascist governments when they proclaim them to be “far right” while ignoring the socialist traits that fit them into the far left. Effectively, fascism is the opposite of libertarianism and both are at right angles to progressivism (socialism) and conservatism (capitalism)


Boy Mustang - You really drank a lot of the Fox Entertainment Cool aide.

WHAT?? Constitutionalists? Are you kidding me? The conservative right is so far away from the constitution they don’t even know where it is.

This is a parody right?


Mustang, I would love to explain all the ways in which your post is full of beans, but this is a car forum. Can we keep it to cars?


Could we please not do this Fox News rehash? It never goes anywhere good.


I can always count on Mike to mention Fox News… even when I didn’t.

If you want to look at one candidate’s top 10 promises in the last election, please feel free to pick the one that isn’t an example of more government intervention or an intention to overturn a SCOTUS ruling.

No parody, just how I see it. Others see things from very different lenses…


You failed to notice I DID keep it to cars Self driving cars was my example… :grinning:


But quote them so often. You almost live on every word (aka. Lie) they spew.


Car-related or not, I’m not going to respond point-by-point to @Mustmangman’s rather lengthy post because it’s nothing but unsubstantiated broad generalizations. If we were disputing facts, I’d want to debate those facts, but I’m not going to debate someone’s unsupported personal beliefs and opinions. There is no point.

My point about government-control of media and centralized control of government being critical elements of fascism stands, but how did we get here? Talk about a “slippery slope” fallacy!

Logical-Fallacies-slippery-slope-620x384 (1)

The fact that anyone managed to take this conversation all the way from a public policy technology debate to an Orwellian dystopian future where nobody is allowed to drive tells me all I need to know about how some people will react with complete emotion and fear rather than calm logic.

This particular phenomenon is pretty common in public policy. Whether you talk about vaccinations against infectious diseases, putting fluoride in the drinking water, labeling GMOs, or selling self-driving cars, every dollar spent scaring the public will get more results than $10 worth of factual evidence that shows how much safer the thing is that you’re scared of is than what we have now. Evidence meant to scare you is only an inch wide, but it runs a mile deep, while factual evidence meant to appeal to your logic and reason is a mile wide, but it only runs an inch deep.


So do both of mine, even though only one of them is “old enough to drink” (1994 F150.) Don’t tell, ok?