San Francisco group placing traffic cones on self-driving cars to disable them. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 02:25:09 am
content: Driverless cars creating traffic jams in San Francisco

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 03:38:07 am
content: lmfao a unicornwhile its cool is anyone suspicious there is like a oceangate grade CEO behind these cars?

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 03:55:45 am
content: 2nd video toward the end. Banging on about safety.. conducts interview while standing in the middle of the street.Fire trucks do have a bull bar.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 04:42:52 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on July 11, 2023, 03:38:07 amOh, there kind of is.

author: ConKbot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 10:00:32 pm
content: Flashing lights = stop, hey at least it's better than Tesla's signature move of "drive into the rear of a fire truck at highway speeds"

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 10:42:50 pm
content: There will always be luddites afraid of progress. Personally I can hardly wait for the self-driving car future.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 11:20:19 pm
content: Future headline: "California passes new laws to prevent the harassment of energy efficient green vehicles."FYI there is also a group running loose in California that is going around and slashing the tires of any SUV that they can find.California isn't called "The land of Fruits and Nuts" for nothing.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 10:20:37 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on July 12, 2023, 11:20:19 pmYes, that's not completely unlikely.Laws to prevent harassment of "AI" in general may also see the light. I wouldn't be hugely surprised.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 08:28:56 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on July 11, 2023, 03:38:07 amLike this one?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 08:48:32 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 12, 2023, 10:42:50 pmIndeed. And they don't even want to show their faces!

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 06:42:18 pm
content: they should call them pegasus

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 08:46:05 pm
content: "We must prepare for an angrier world."

author: mendip_discovery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 01:45:04 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 12, 2023, 10:42:50 pmWe already live in a very selfish world where you can have deliveries of stuff by staff, seven days a week. Now we are looking at having computers drive to save the effort of having to do it myself. Personally, I can't be bothered by the self-driving future and all it brings. Though I doubt I will be around to be affected by it all.

author: I wanted a rude username
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 03:44:04 pm
content: I'm a huge fan of self-driving cars, but the way the Cruise cars drive is giving the concept a bad reputation. Their movement is incongruously reluctant most of the time, but then they'll blatantly pull out in front of oncoming traffic when making turns ... it's the self-driving equivalent of the 98-year-old grandma who can barely see over the steering wheel. These cars are not ready to be driving themselves, and the reaction is understandable.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 05:11:23 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 12, 2023, 10:42:50 pmIn the present case, the sentiment apparently is not "We don't want no self-driving cars, ever", but "We don't want immature self-driving cars to be road-tested here, creating traffic obstacles and hazards". Given the reports of Cruise cars regularly getting stuck and blocking traffic, I can relate to that.If Cruise feel that they need real-world road testing for the next step in their cars' development, they should spend the money to put a human observer and backup driver into each of these cars. Letting them loose unattended seems premature.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 05:16:08 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 16, 2023, 05:11:23 pmThey're under pressure from Stockton Rush type investors and management to conclude and assert that they are nearly ready for prime time when in fact they aren't. If they admit that they need another decade with no guarantee that there is a solution to all the issues, the plug will be pulled in an instant.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 09:08:33 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on July 16, 2023, 05:16:08 pmAbsolutely.And no amount of OceanGate-like catastrophes is apparently going to change that. Do not even hope it will trigger change. It won't.

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 12:05:43 am
content: Comparisons with OceanGate are ridiculous. In the US alone,humandrivers kill about 30,000 people every year. Those who stand in the way of autonomous vehicle R&D are basically saying, "I'm OK with that."There are no self-driving cars in my garage. If you saw the ones that are there, you'd wrinkle your nose at my point above, and you'd mutter that perhaps it would be better made by someone else. But let's be realistic here... the only creatures that suck worse than robots at driving are humans.Think you know how to do it better? I'm sure the HR departments at Waymo and Tesla and Cruise have open reqs. Go show 'em how it's done. In the meantime, don't get in the way of the people who are already trying their best.

author: Benta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 12:20:31 am
content: Quote from: KE5FX on July 17, 2023, 12:05:43 amFat red herring.Read reply #15 again, it hits the point.Testing immature technology on the general populace is a no-go.And what happened to my flying car? They promised me one last century.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 12:28:21 am
content: Quote from: KE5FX on July 17, 2023, 12:05:43 amI'm not saying I'm OK with that anymore than I'm OK with the number of people that die from cancer or diabetes. But not being OK with those things does not make it appropriate to lie and obfuscate about the efficacy of the proposed remedy, whether it be quack medicine or self-driving tech that doesn't work yet. Nobody is "standing in the way" of autonomous vehicle research unless you consider opposition to experiments on non-volunteer human subjects (with the occasional death) to be obstructionist.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 12:45:37 am
content: Quote from: Benta on July 17, 2023, 12:20:31 amYes, that's just the point.(By the same reasoning, one could otherwise argue that there's a gross overreaction to OceanGate's debacle itself, as it's been operating for over 10 years and had "only" 5 deaths, while there are over 4000 people per year that die from drowning in the USA alone:https://www.cdc.gov/drowning/data/index.html. Playing with numbers with no regards to morals is fun, isn't it?)Quote from: Benta on July 17, 2023, 12:20:31 amMy little finger is telling me right now that it won't happen anytime in the next, uh, century, or something.But some companies are working on "drones" for flying taxi services.The future of individual transportation per se doesn't look too bright, it's not just about flying cars.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 01:18:58 am
content: Quote from: I wanted a rude username on July 16, 2023, 03:44:04 pmWhen self driving cards get into accidents that were caused by their actions, I wonder if anyone will be charged or be held accountable and if so, then who? The engineer in California that designed it, the builder in Mexico or China, the programmer in India that programmed it or the CEO of headquarters company located in some place like San Francisco.Self-driving cars that were not supposed to be self-driving have already be in a number of accidents, including at least one pedestrian fatality and a good number of passenger fatalities, but I haven't heard of anyone ever being charged in any of the accidents. Does anyone KNOW of real life criminal charges that anyone has ever faced in the case of a self-driving vehicle?Until all of these types of questions have been satisfactorily answered, it's no wonder that the general public doesn't want these cars on the roads.

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 02:01:54 am
content: Quote from: Benta on July 17, 2023, 12:20:31 amIf you know of a way to get a complex system working without real-world testing, then by all means, please enlighten the rest of us.QuotePick your reason:1) The pilots' union screamed bloody murder and got it outlawed.2) People laughed at the people who were trying to make it happen3) People sabotaged the work of the people who were trying to make it happen4) What, are you nuts? Have you seen the way people DRIVE? We will get flying carsafterself-driving ones, not before. If you want a flying car, get out of the way of the people trying to make self-driving cars work.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 06:51:23 am
content: Quote from: KE5FX on July 17, 2023, 02:01:54 amSimple: Put a human observer/emergency driver into each test car. I am stunned that they got permission to road-test with unmanned cars at this early development stage.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 06:58:10 am
content: they might need to pay insurance and health care if they hire a employee, You can't pave the road to the future by actually hiring employees to maintain ground breaking technology, that's so 1950Big dollar disruptive tech but you can't afford employeesThe funniest thing is though that they probobly say they can't afford the high salary for a test driver because of liability. Meanwhile the test pedestrians get nothing. Almost feels like we need a pedestrian union to prevent unsafe working conditions.Slightly amusing because it used to be that the machine that can maul you was in the factory, you got paid to interact with it and it was rather immobile. Now its mobile and you don't get paid. No operator even. Maybe the people nearby should get a bit of a tax break or something on behalf of the developer. They still put a operator for a train or subway that drives around a well isolated and totally restricted circuit with heavy barriers to ingress of the population.. meanwhile the car is mixed right in and you don't get shit. IMO completely ridiculous.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 07:02:20 am
content: Quote from: Benta on July 17, 2023, 12:20:31 am

author: mendip_discovery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 11:58:49 am
content: In the UK the government started work on determining who would be blamed in the case of an auto driving car. I think they have applied it's the manufacturer who is at fault. But we will see how much money they have for lobbying against this. It's not like we made illegal scooters legal if its via a gig economy business.On the point about a human being in the test car. I know people who work with the development cars for Ford, they put lots of miles on the cars taking them on random journeys just to get more data. So there is no real excuse for not having a person in the car other than saving money.There are tales of the Tesla's not liking some motorcycles and there has been at least two where the car crashed into the rear of a bike. Using the 30k deaths is one of those strawman argument things, the number if deaths on the roads have been dropping over the years even though there are more cars around than ever before.I am interested to know if there is a spike with pedestrians being ran over by electric cars as they can be rather sneaky. If the new self driving cars are electric then I can see an increase in accidents per car.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 12:01:49 pm
content: Quote from: Benta on July 17, 2023, 12:20:31 amFlying submarines that climbs trees have been around for millions of years..basically.

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 05:58:59 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 17, 2023, 06:51:23 amApparently it's not that "simple" after all, because at least some of the fatal accidents involving experimental self-driving cars have occurred with a human observer in the car. It's a "simple" human factors problem: people who aren't paying close enough attention to the car and its surroundings cannot be expected to take over at a moment's notice, and there is no way people are going to pay enough attention when the car is performing flawlessly 99%+ of the time.This is an incredibly difficult engineering problem. How do we get from three or four nines to five or six? Telling ourselves that it will be OK as long as a (presumably infallible) human is available to take over in an emergency is not the way forward.Putting traffic cones on prototype cars in hopes that companies will just give up is going to get more people killed in the long run. At the moment,solid info regarding safetyis hard to come by, but we are clearly not seeing the epidemic of carnage that detractors have been whining about.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 05:59:49 pm
content: Quote from: KE5FX on July 17, 2023, 05:49:23 pmI didn't read the link. Are they including Teslas?QuoteI agree that it is difficult. I agree that the backup human is not a complete solution because of disengagement--improved safety is best had by having the human drive and the AI monitor, but that doesn'tsell carsmake news and attract investors. I disagree that countless lives will be saved later because I don't think that AI driving caneverbe fully realized with our current roadways and traffic system, especially if the fake-it-till-you-make-it types insist on using only visible spectrum cameras. We'll see. In any case, I'm not volunteering to be one of the eggs broken in these experiments.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 07:30:55 pm
content: Quote from: KE5FX on July 17, 2023, 05:58:59 pmAccording to the reports posted early in this thread, most of the Cruise and Waymo incidents do not involve split-second decisions, but cars getting stuck in the middle of the road, creating major traffic jams and blocking emergency vehicles. A human copilot on standby should easily be able to resolve these.Yes, it won't be perfect, and I agree with your point that staying alert at all times becomes increasingly difficult when there is nothing to do most of the time. But if this could reduce the number of annoying and potentially dangerous incidents by a factor of ten, it would go a long way in increasing acceptance of the testing among the citizens. As would be the fact that the companies are willing to spend money on extra staff to limit the annoyances.

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 09:06:25 pm
content: QuoteYeah, I edited that part because it came off as a bit on the Stalinist side.Nobody wants to be one of the broken eggs, myself included. But it appears that there are just notthatmany eggs being broken, and presumably the egg-breakage rate will only get better over time.And yes, it does seem nuts for Tesla to limit themselves to visual-spectrum cameras. I don't believe that's the case for the cars being sabotaged, though.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 09:43:22 pm
content: The big problem with Tesla is they're testing with general members of the public as the monitor-driver. These people aren't trained on how SDCs go wrong and in some of the worst and most unpredictable ways. I don't think using visual cameras alone is a bad idea, it certainly complicates the solution because you need to interpret the video data in 3D, but LIDAR sensors aren't exactly cheap so if Tesla want to make $30k taxis then it's going to be difficult to justify LIDAR. The problem with the Tesla platform isn't perception but rather the interpretation of that 3D world created from the neural networks (and doing that interpretation on the current HW platform required a loss of redundancy; the car now only has 'one' self driving AP processor).Having a look at some of the videos on YouTube, e.g. AIDRIVR has some good examples, Tesla seem quite a bit further along than many in the SDC community want to admit given most everyone has bet on LIDAR being necessary. However it's always those annoying edge cases that bring the car from "interesting on YouTube" to "adequate for self-driving without a human". It's worth noting that LIDAR struggles in heavy rain, fog and snow, and a SDC is going to need to work in those. While vision might struggle in fog, it can operate in rain and snow and it seems LIDAR has more significant degradation in fog.Waymo seem to be winning the battle and Cruise are desperately chasing. Waymo's interpretation of how to fit into a world with human drivers is near-superb in the sample of videos I've seen, and it can handle the painful situations like humans directing traffic away from accidents, emergency vehicles trying to pass, etc. That said it's fun to watch Waymo videos when the car sees rain -it really doesn't like it- though they seem to have improved over time. Perhaps there's a reason Waymo started their testing in LA and Phoenix, AZ... two of the driest areas in the continental US?

author: redkitedesign
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2023, 12:18:37 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on July 17, 2023, 01:18:58 amWhen will we hold human drivers accountable for their actions? Unless there is proof that a human driver caused an accident on purpose, it will always be attributed to an "unfortunate mistake". Even things like speeding, running red lights and drunk driving aren't treated like first degree murder.And AI drivers don't tend to speed, ignore (or just miss) traffic lights or be hampered by fatigue or the binary equivalent of alcohol.So let the owner of the self driving car pay for a decent liability insurance (obligatory in most of the civilized world anyhow) and de done with it.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2023, 02:09:39 pm
content: Quote from: redkitedesign on July 18, 2023, 12:18:37 pm^This. And it seems a lot of bandwidth is wasted on people talking about things like the trolley problem... Oh no, what if a self-driving car faces hitting three grannies or one baby, which will it choose to murder?Well it'll probably brake and steer towards the best free space, so likely hit both groups of individuals if no one individual can be avoided. It's not going to be programmed with morals or value judgements. Good road design with improved visibility and SDCs that don't speed shall ensure the likelihood of a pedestrian collision is significantly reduced.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2023, 03:29:28 pm
content: Interesting legal detail: this year, the State of Illinois passed a law replacing the word "accident" with "crash" in all relevant statutes, to emphasize that not all motor-vehicle "surprises" are accidental.Like most States, Illinois requires liability insurance for motor vehicleshttps://www.ilsos.gov/departments/vehicles/mandatory_insurance.htmland enforces that law electronically, including suspending licenses when proof of insurance is not displayed.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2023, 03:38:16 pm
content: Quote from: redkitedesign on July 18, 2023, 12:18:37 pmIt's not treated like first degree murder unless all the elements of that are present, which they aren't in a typical crash. But drivers can be and routinely are prosecuted and imprisoned for crashes where they have sufficient culpability. Civil liability can be expensive as well-there was a recent case here in California where an injured (not killed) motorcyclist obtained a $20 million judgment for what was essentially an illegal lane change.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2023, 03:59:28 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on July 18, 2023, 03:38:16 pmThat does sound pretty significant but not knowing the motorcyclists injuries it's hard to be certain. I wouldn't take $20 million over being paralysed and in a wheelchair for the rest of my life, for instance.The biggest one I know of in the UK is the Selby rail disaster, a 4x4 came off a motorway due to a driver having not slept sufficiently. 4x4 ended up on the tracks, with a trailer in tow. A train hit it, derailed, and another train was then hit by that derailed train. Ten people killed (including both train drivers), 82 seriously injured.By 2003, the driver's insurers had paid out over £31 million, and had budgeted for up to £50 million in costs. (In real terms, that's probably closer to $70 million USD now.) The driver was criminally prosecuted for death by dangerous driving, and received a five year sentence.

author: EPAIII
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2023, 09:56:00 am
content: Well, I am not a Luddite, but I CAN WAIT until they are proven as safe as human drivers in ALL circumstances. I don't think they are there yet.PS: The word Luddite should be capitalized because it is based on a (mythical?) person's name.https://www.google.com/search?q=why+is+luddite+capitalized&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=AB5stBh_J5NqHpdd5pC3cHQOokJUy5F-cg%3A1689760617369&ei=abO3ZLqPFpe6qtsPkPu3-Ag&oq=Why+is+Luddite+capital&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiFldoeSBpcyBMdWRkaXRlIGNhcGl0YWwqAggAMgUQIRigAUjNWFAAWNJHcAB4AZABAJgBf6ABiwyqAQQxMy40uAEByAEA-AEBwgIHECMYsAIYJ8ICBxAAGA0YgATCAgoQABgNGIAEGLEDwgIGEAAYBxgewgIIEAAYCBgeGA3CAggQABiKBRiGA8ICBhAAGAgYHsICBhAAGB4YDcICBRAAGIAEwgIGEAAYFhgewgIFECEYqwLiAwQYACBBiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serpQuote from: tom66 on July 12, 2023, 10:42:50 pm

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2023, 12:28:17 pm
content: Quote from: KE5FX on July 17, 2023, 05:58:59 pmThe level of annoyance necessary to make a driver keep his eyes on the road with level2+ would require quite a lot of pay.Gaze detection and pretty much immediate loud warning on eyes off road events.

author: redkitedesign
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2023, 01:59:28 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 18, 2023, 02:09:39 pmWell, faced with an granny in one lane, and a baby in the other (on a 2-lane road with cars parked on both sides, 50km/h speed limit), the AI driver will have noticed long ago that it couldn't decide the road ahead is free for enough distance,and it would have lowered its speed long ago. Because AI drivers never get tired of expecting toddlers to appear between parked cars, nor would be bothered by driving a safer 30km/h where 50 is legally allowed.The human driver on the other hand would panic, brake abruptly and jerk the steering wheel, causing the car to overturn and sweep over sideways both the granny and the toddler, while damaging at least 4 of the parked cars.Thankfully, the driver would be unharmed thanks to the airbags. Since the driver didn't expect it, and according to the car computer was nicely below the speed limit at 49km/h, they won't be criminally prosecuted.Sure, AI drivers aren't perfect. But I'm pretty sure there are far more emergency vehicles blocked by asshole humans who "just need to grab this really important package (i.e. a box of cigarettes)" than by confused AI's

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2023, 04:56:34 pm
content: Quote from: redkitedesign on July 19, 2023, 01:59:28 pmSomeone driving like that might well be prosecuted, at least in the UK, as regardless of the speed limit, you are REQUIRED to "drive according to the road conditions". This includes lowering your speed if your vision is impaired by parked cars.Quote from: redkitedesign on July 19, 2023, 01:59:28 pmThis is highly improbable, when broken down per vehicle mile.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2023, 05:40:52 pm
content: https://www.wired.com/story/cruise-fire-truck-block-san-francisco-autonomous-vehicles/

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2024, 09:44:47 pm
content: I noticed today that GM are giving up on Cruise. Its not clear why. GM has a lot of problems right now, so its not a definitive "robotaxis aren't working for us". I think they are looking for cutbacks wherever they can find them.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2024, 10:47:13 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 17, 2023, 07:30:55 pmBut not having a human driver or a human standby driver is the entire point of driverless cars! Companies are looking for ways to operate delivery vehicles, cabs and the like without the expense of having a driver so the very idea of having a standby driver is nonsense. It might appease the masses but realistically, it's never going to happen. Second, even if companies were to put standby drivers in the cars, there's no reason to think that the standby driver would be constantly and continually aware of the road situation and would be able to react quickly enough to prevent an accident. We've already seen a very large real world examples of that happening.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2024, 10:54:40 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on December 11, 2024, 10:47:13 pmOf course that's the end game. But the whole discussion you selectively quoted from was about thetesting phasefor driverless cars. Please re-read the posts before the one you quoted from, or at least read my full post -- you conveniently omitted the part that "it would go a long way in increasing acceptanceof the testingamong the citizens."(Take your time reading up on it, there's no rush -- that whole discussion is more than a year old.)

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2024, 10:58:58 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on December 11, 2024, 10:54:40 pmI wondered whether I should add an update to the thread, or start a new one. Some people seem to hate a thread being revived, even if its with new and relevant information.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2024, 11:01:20 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on July 18, 2023, 03:29:28 pmThe State of Florida does exactly the same thing and has been doing all of that for over 30 years but they still estimate that nearly 50% of the cars on the road there do not have insurance! So there are still many (too many) ways of evading the law. The last driver that hit me had no brakes in his truck, a stolen license tag, no insurance, no driver's license and was in the county illegally and his truck had no current registration and the police couldn't even figure out who owned it so in the end I had to pay for all of my own damage and he ultimately walked away scott free.Auto insurance in the US is a complete mess; even before you start adding in the complexities of driverless cars and who should be responsible for the damage that they cause.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2024, 11:10:52 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on July 19, 2023, 05:40:52 pmInteresting. I wonder if Cruze and the other taxi and delivery companies will allow their vehicles to stopin the travel lanesto load or unload passengers and/or cargo or if they'll do something to prevent the doors from being opened unless it isproperlyparked?It's illegal in all US states that I'm aware of but it is routinely done everywhere that I've been to.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2024, 11:12:51 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on December 11, 2024, 11:01:20 pmThen what is the point of auto insurance in the first place?I mean, if a thief stole your car, did that thief have to have auto-insurance for your coverage to kick in?Something fishy is going on...

author: wilfred
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2024, 11:19:04 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on December 11, 2024, 10:58:58 pmSome are quite dogmatic about not starting new threads. I like to keep related info together if it is a small topic with limited scope like a piece of equipment that attracts responses from few people. That way anyone searching has fewer hits but each with more info. Then the benefit of consolidating threads tapers off as interest increases and the noise level rises with conversational responses interspersed amongst the real useful data. Thereby decreasing the value of each search hit. And then there are the popular opinion driven threads on flammable subjects where I again want them consolidated to keep the S#$t in one big pile(-on).I don't know in some cases just why continuing an old thread is anathema to those who seem to have very rigid views on it. It's a nuanced spectrum to me.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2024, 12:06:28 am
content: Quote from: KE5FX on July 17, 2023, 02:01:54 am(5) We don't yet have, & probably never will, have anti-gravity, which would be the only thing which will make something like the cartoon & SCI-FI "flying cars" work.(The Jetsons one is really a spaceship.)Everything that has been touted uses rotors or something similar, so that either gives you something like a bubble car, with the real estate requirement of a Hummer, or if it has anything approaching a normal car's seating capacity that of a Helicopter.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2024, 09:57:41 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on December 12, 2024, 03:33:22 amIn the immortal words of Groucho Marx----"I rest my case!"