Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.

There’s a big difference between a pre-announced go-slow protest, typically employed by motor vehicle users inc taxi drivers, farmers etc, and an indefinite surprise road block which the extinctionists seem to favour.

It’s bit like the difference between probation and solitary confinement i.e. a lot.
 
There’s a big difference between a pre-announced go-slow protest, typically employed by motor vehicle users inc taxi drivers, farmers etc, and an indefinite surprise road block which the extinctionists seem to favour.

It’s bit like the difference between probation and solitary confinement i.e. a lot.
Yes, the Insulate Britain protesters were significantly more courageous than this lot, who can't be botered to get out of their vehicles unless it's to assault someone making some protest they disagree with. Instead they are doing what they normally do everyday - driving around moaning about taxes (and probably about cyclists who jump red lights) - just significantly slower than usual.
 
London’s finest!


Professional drivers should certainly maintain a higher standard of safety and the cyclist is right to report him, but it’s hardly an argument to support calls to ban cars, is it? I would have thought the coming automation of cars will deal with most the bad driving incidents which seem to enrage the anti car lobby, and then what arguments do they have remaining?
 
Professional drivers should certainly maintain a higher standard of safety and the cyclist is right to report him, but it’s hardly an argument to support calls to ban cars, is it? I would have thought the coming automation of cars will deal with most the bad driving incidents which seem to enrage the anti car lobby, and then what arguments do they have remaining?
Welcome to the thread, which I see you haven't bothered to read any of.
 
Yes, the Insulate Britain protesters were significantly more courageous than this lot, who can't be botered to get out of their vehicles unless it's to assault someone making some protest they disagree with. Instead they are doing what they normally do everyday - driving around moaning about taxes (and probably about cyclists who jump red lights) - just significantly slower than usual.

Courage isn’t sufficient for an an effective or equitable protest. Going on a flamethrower rampage against random pedestrians in front of the armed police at Downing Street might be seen as courageous, but if it’s to protest about VAT on domestic heating it’s not exactly laudable.
 
Welcome to the thread, which I see you haven't bothered to read any of.
Thank you for the welcome. When I read the recent part of the thread, I noticed Mr Ed’s posts seem to repetitively mention bad drivers who have lost their emotional control, with the suggestion that this should be a reason to ban car ownership. I therefore made the helpful suggestion that self driving cars might solve the problem instead.

If you’re interested in improving the situation, I would expect you to welcome this.
 
It's only around five years away! I know this is true because it's been five years away for quite some time now.
From what I understand, Tesla have been making great strides and I for one think computers will do a much better job of piloting heavy dangerous machines than incompetent humans do.
 
a much better job of piloting heavy dangerous machines than incompetent humans do
A key question is how much better will they have to be? A little bit better isn't going to cut it. A lot better might not be acceptable either. I don't think killing hundreds of people every year and maiming tens of thousands is going to be acceptable to the general public, even though many are fine with these figures when it's not the fault of robots. The panic over escooters gives you a preview, even though they're not that risky.

very rapidly
Weird, I'd heard they had come to an unexpected stop.
 
Car abolitionists generally hate self-driving cars because they have a fundamental hatred of cars and the personal freedom they enable. Reductions in casualties through self-driving tech, or pollution through electrification are meaningless to them.

On the other hand they'd be quite happy with millions of single-occupancy buses, either self-driving and pollution-free or diesel-powered and driven by untrained morons. Because buses are public transport and all bus-users are equal.
 
If safe, automated cars are just around the corner, then it would make sense to implement some pragmatic safety measures for human drivers immediately (eg, 20mph limit on all roads everywhere).

Because automated car will show up any minute now, it would only be a short time that impatient human drivers would have to tolerate these speed restrictions.
 
A key question is how much better will they have to be? A little bit better isn't going to cut it. A lot better might not be acceptable either. I don't think killing hundreds of people every year and maiming tens of thousands is going to be acceptable to the general public, even though many are fine with these figures when it's not the fault of robots. The panic over escooters gives you a preview, even though they're not that risky.


Weird, I'd heard they had come to an unexpected stop.
No doubt there will be bumps in the road and like any technology, getting the last few percent of the functionality will take the longest time. I cant imagine the automated systems could possibly be worse than some of the things I’ve seen on the road from brain-dead humans.
 
If safe, automated cars are just around the corner, then it would make sense to implement some pragmatic safety measures for human drivers immediately (eg, 20mph limit on all roads everywhere).

Because automated car will show up any minute now, it would only be a short time that impatient human drivers would have to tolerate these speed restrictions.
I think you‘re making invalid assumptions about the speed at which self driving cars might become widely available.
 
Car abolitionists generally hate self-driving cars because they have a fundamental hatred of cars and the personal freedom they enable. Reductions in casualties through self-driving tech, or pollution through electrification are meaningless to them.

On the other hand they'd be quite happy with millions of single-occupancy buses, either self-driving and pollution-free or diesel-powered and driven by untrained morons. Because buses are public transport and all bus-users are equal.
Dunno, plenty of people seem to think drivers are on the whole too dangerous, and that autonomous cars are god-sent and will get rid of road casualties. Ironically (deliciously so), the single biggest obstacle to self-driving cars becoming sufficiently reliable is the very people who would like them to become a reality asap, namely many of those cyclists and militant anti-car pedestrians. No computer software, current or expected in the foreesable future, can cope with the fact that cyclists don't obey the same rules as motorised traffic and basically are too unpredictable due to their tendency to do whatever the fuck they please at all times. Ditto pedestrians who seem to have forgotten, or never learned in the first place, to check for traffic before suddenly appearing on the road between two parked vehicles so no vehicle can spot them until the very last second.

For self-driving cars to become failproof, cyclists will need to start to obey the Highway Code, and pedestrians take the courtesy to look before they cross a road instead of expecting it's their inalienable right to do so without looking, or expecting their rights supersede the laws of physics. So in this country at least, don't expect to see fail-proof autonomous cars on our roads in our lifetime.
 
Dunno, plenty of people seem to think drivers are on the whole too dangerous, and that autonomous cars are god-sent and will get rid of road casualties. Ironically (deliciously so), the single biggest obstacle to self-driving cars becoming sufficiently reliable is the very people who would like them to become a reality asap, namely many of those cyclists and militant anti-car pedestrians. No computer software, current or expected in the foreesable future, can cope with the fact that cyclists don't obey the same rules as motorised traffic and basically are too unpredictable due to their tendency to do whatever the fuck they please at all times. Ditto pedestrians who seem to have forgotten, or never learned in the first place, to check for traffic before suddenly appearing on the road between two parked vehicles so no vehicle can spot them until the very last second.

For self-driving cars to become failproof, cyclists will need to start to obey the Highway Code, and pedestrians take the courtesy to look before they cross a road instead of expecting it's their inalienable right to do so without looking, or expecting their rights supersede the laws of physics. So in this country at least, don't expect to see fail-proof autonomous cars on our roads in our lifetime.
I suppose like any technology, it will evolve and improve through generations and maybe we shouldn’t be constrained by thinking of the overall road safety as being limited by cars only having available the info which can be perceived from their own viewpoint (eg. In your example “cars can’t anticipate a suddenly appearing pedestrian”).

What I mean by that is maybe within densely populated zones (city streets) the cars could be under control of a centralised system which has sensors watching from above which would see early enough the actions of the errant pedestrian in your example and apply the brakes of cars which could come into conflict with them if they continue their path out into the road, even though from the car’s point of view they are hidden from view.

But this is no doubt a good length of time from being even planned, let alone implemented, so I’m sure you’re right in what you said above that autonomous cars as we currently understand them can never be foolproof or entirely safe. I wouldn’t betting they’ll be an absolutely huge improvement on some current drivers though.
 
It's pretty simple in principle - you programme into the system that cyclists, pedestrians and indeed all other road users are liable to move in unexpected ways. Then it deals with this appropriately, primarily by drving at a speed at which it's possible to stop within the distance ahead verified to be clear at any one point. Of course, any good human driver also assumes that other road users might behave in unexpected ways, just like the Highway Code instructs them to.

You can always tell an incompetent driver from the fact that they complain about other people acting in unpredictable ways.
 
Dunno, plenty of people seem to think drivers are on the whole too dangerous, and that autonomous cars are god-sent and will get rid of road casualties. Ironically (deliciously so), the single biggest obstacle to self-driving cars becoming sufficiently reliable is the very people who would like them to become a reality asap, namely many of those cyclists and militant anti-car pedestrians. No computer software, current or expected in the foreesable future, can cope with the fact that cyclists don't obey the same rules as motorised traffic and basically are too unpredictable due to their tendency to do whatever the fuck they please at all times. Ditto pedestrians who seem to have forgotten, or never learned in the first place, to check for traffic before suddenly appearing on the road between two parked vehicles so no vehicle can spot them until the very last second.

For self-driving cars to become failproof, cyclists will need to start to obey the Highway Code, and pedestrians take the courtesy to look before they cross a road instead of expecting it's their inalienable right to do so without looking, or expecting their rights supersede the laws of physics. So in this country at least, don't expect to see fail-proof autonomous cars on our roads in our lifetime.
Yet again showing how utterly backwards this thinking is.

Should we have cities designed for people? No, cars must have priority, everyone else must act according to the needs of traffic.

Mental.
 
Surely automated passenger airliners will come first. The tech is already here, it's just insurance, passenger confidence and safety protocols which are in the way.

However since automated airliners aren’t entering commercial service any time soon, I think we can forget about self-driving cars for the foreseeable.
 
Yet again showing how utterly backwards this thinking is.

Should we have cities designed for people? No, cars must have priority, everyone else must act according to the needs of traffic.

Mental.

You might not realise it but cars are driven by people, ridden in by people, and serve to transport people.
 
Fuel price protesters using similar tactics to Inuslate Britain to highlight their concerns today.


I wonder if there's any crossover between drivers protesting against fuel prices and drivers who lost the plot when Insulate Britain prevented them from driving around on cheap fuel a few months back.
Reckon fuel prices must be too low if people are willing to drive around pointlessly trying to protest.
 
Thank you for the welcome. When I read the recent part of the thread, I noticed Mr Ed’s posts seem to repetitively mention bad drivers who have lost their emotional control, with the suggestion that this should be a reason to ban car ownership. I therefore made the helpful suggestion that self driving cars might solve the problem instead.

If you’re interested in improving the situation, I would expect you to welcome this.
Self driving cars definitely sounds like a solution but not here yet so I suggest we ban cars in the meantime. Thanks
 
Last edited:
Well Elon is a well known twonk, so nothing would surprise me. But nevertheless, Tesla have been advancing electric car technology very rapidly.
Seriously, listen to this. Tesla are nowhere near having self driving cars and are basically a fraudulent company.

 
Back
Top Bottom