Yea I’m not too keen on giving authorization to hit pedestrians. If I feel threatened in my car, I am not allowed to run over the person so why should a driverless car gain that right? And if the panic button is going to call the police, how is that any different from the passenger using their phone to contact police? Seems like extra steps of middlemen and confusion when the passenger could just call once they feel the need.

I could defintely see a case for some extra safety features that help keep the doors locked and shut, maybe thicker windows too if needed to prevent robberies/assaults.

Have you seen those warriors from Hammerfell? They’ve got curved swords.

Personally i just use a toothpick, but i usually clean for smooth operation as I rarely run out these days.

You’re probably still getting some steel in the weed. It is very unlikely the knife and the grinder share the exact hardness.

It is so messed up how every part of our society is secretly tuned to make being poor trapped yet every rung up the ladder to being wealthy, the journey gets a little easier by hidden subsidies like this.

How would you tell you’re looking at a synchronized digital clock or cheap battery model?

There are tons of equipment and tools out there that very closely resemble an analog clock and require the same skills. Pressure gauges for example. These skills are not out dated.

IMO all the more reason to keep them. In the real world we all have to perform under pressure. With practice they can learn to read the clock under pressure, maybe take a breath or two and slow down before trying to read it. It may be a simple hurdle to overcome but practicing overcoming these things is important for development.

Which is a big part of the problem. But not all Netherlands cities are super dense, many have suburbs serviced by transit and with cycling paths. When they were built they considered transit and cycling access when they built them.

There is also the issue of land use. Many of those cities have looser zoning laws than the states which makes it easier for stores to open near peoples homes and scattered throughout the city rather than having to go to a massive commercial district with walmart and 5 other big box stores in a wasteland of parking.

No one is saying a tiny farming town of 500 people needs high speed rail but cities into the 100s of thousands of people can certainly support a transit network, and many did before their trams were ripped out and their right of way given to cars.

The new york city subway is often faster than driving. Many cities in the Netherlands have faster transit or cycling times than driving due to careful planning and priority. Japan has high speed rail connecting many of its cities, most trains going faste than highway speeds, some doubling or even tripling highway speeds.

Also north america was founded on trains. If we could build trains 100 years ago we can build better ones now.

All of those issues could be fixed by building around transit being the prioirty instead of the car. Some cities actually have transit that is faster than a car because transit gets priority at intersections and can take a more direct route.

The majority of trips people make are within their own city/local region. Thats where transit should be implemented first. Your country is not “too big” for transit

If your country is too big for transit, it is certainly too big for all sorts of sensors and such in the roads to assist autonmous driving.

Or just buld a tram that rides on rails. More effecient and no need to over engineer an autopilot system

I don’t want to waste any more tax money trying to make one of the least effecient modes of transport more autonomous. Just build an electricrfied tram if thats what you want.

All the “self driving” cars are trying to evolve into proper trams and railways

As we replace ICE cars with EVs people will think “problem solved” and refuse to fund transit, bike lanes, denser housing. I see the point you are making but I’m worried society’s capitalist attitude will use EVs as an excuse to kick the can of centric planning down the road.

We need to both. We need to bring all urban areas up to walkable standards and make them serviceable by transit. We need to provide EVs for rural people and those who refuse any other mode of transit for whatever reasons.

Just building the same way but with EVs instead of ICEs is still a massive impact on the environment. It wastes vasts amount of valuable urban lands while also being one of the least energy effecient modes of travel.

The same problem could be fixed with electrified transit and walkability. Transit would also be even more environmentally friendly.

Plus we could still develop self driving cars but do a lot more testing before we set the public as the guinea pigs to see if they are safe.

Id also argue that we cannot claim this is the worst self driving will get since self driving cars are only used in a few areas right now.

There are greener, more energy effecient and more socially fair ways to get the same results than selling everybody a high tech steel box.

Driving while inebriated is illegal, self driving is not.

Traffics jams and erreactic behaviour could be fixed if everyone is in a self driving car, but at that point it woild be far more energy effecient, environmentally friendly and cheaper for society to build electrified transit instead.

If you prioritize the street so that only self driving cars are on it and they need wireless communications to function, how do other road users like cyclists and pedeatrians safely use the street?

Self driving cars are not here to make your life better, they are here to make a handful of people rich.

I don’t think public deaths is a valid cost for creating self driving cars. We could be builidng safer and more effecient transportation systems. Some billionaire is going to make even more money because they were allowed to use the general public and city streets as a testing ground for their product. This is not fair to the family or the people who are injured or killed by self driving cars.