|
Another goofy idea
Monday, Sep 19, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller * I don’t really think that driverless cars are going to be a real issue for quite a long time. If you look carefully at the breathless write-ups about Uber’s splashy “no-driver” car rollout in Pittsburgh, you’ll see that the cars do, indeed, have drivers who had to take control at various points in the demonstrations and the drivers require special two-week training classes before they get behind the wheel. My main concern is that policymakers shouldn’t succumb to Uber and the other big players’ expected attempts to get the government to somehow subsidize this stuff or set aside big chunks of city streets for the But this is a bit much…
Sigh. They’re not even here yet. They’re not even driverless yet. Take a breath already. * For whatever reason, Ald. Burke decided to appear on Dan Proft’s radio show. You should really give this a listen. Burke is raked over the coals about his proposed ban and the city’s less than stellar governance. I don’t think he realized what he had gotten himself into…
|
 |
|
|
- RNUG - Monday, Sep 19, 16 @ 1:37 pm:
New cars have gotten quite good at assisting drivers (lane keeping, automatic braking, self parking are all examples that are pretty much mainstream offerings now), but they have a ways to go to become driverless. Yes, I know how fast technology is changing the automobile, but we’re not as close as the hype makes it appear. I get press releases every week about this or that advancement; still issues to work out … and not all of them are technology … fear, uncertainty and doubt exist in the public’s mind.
- Jackie - Monday, Sep 19, 16 @ 1:38 pm:
It’s so unlike Ald. Burke to put forward a policy strictly for media attention…
- Ron Burgundy - Monday, Sep 19, 16 @ 1:46 pm:
Bunch of Luddites. I for one welcome the inception of Jonny Cabs ala Total Recall in Chicago, but I suspect the cab lobby doesn’t.
- @MisterJayEm - Monday, Sep 19, 16 @ 1:47 pm:
Forget the hypothetical but mundane dangers of driver-less cars — when will alderman finally propose an ordinance to ban post-Singularity, greater-than-human, artificial superintelligences in Chicago??!?
– MrJM
- Southern - Monday, Sep 19, 16 @ 1:49 pm:
I think the belief that driverless vehicles is still quite a ways might be misplaced. USDOT has thrown quite a bit of support at the issue already to research implementation.
- Gooner - Monday, Sep 19, 16 @ 1:58 pm:
This is disappointing.
I’ve long argued that Proft could be a really interesting journalist if he could get away from his tedious far right lines.
A few times he had Burke looking bad, but then Proft would suggest that all Democrats are to blame and suddenly Burke seemed reasonable.
It is probably good for Proft’s business, but it is too bad. It is a waste of some potential talent.
- Reality Check - Monday, Sep 19, 16 @ 2:09 pm:
Proft’s a lying sack of [banned word] - which Burke called him on, for example when Proft claimed Chicago has the nation’s highest property taxes.
But you better know that and be ready going in. Not checking it out is just bad staff work.
Also, of course they don’t reveal they’re agenda when seeking guests. A friendly-sounding producer calls you up and says he’s “from the morning show on WIND” and “we’d love to have you on and hear from you about Issue XYZ.” Just another data point for Proft’s pathological lying.
- m - Monday, Sep 19, 16 @ 2:12 pm:
This is how the rest of the state see Chicago government, a bunch of crazies banning things that pose no threat at all. (At least until the driverless cars reach self-awareness, form their own well-funded lobby, and then buy their own protected monopoly in Chicago.)
-news-”There’s this new thing that might be good, or bad, but it’s years and years away and it…”
-alderman- “Stop, I’ve heard enough, we need to ban it right now before the streets run red with blood!”
- anonymous - Monday, Sep 19, 16 @ 2:15 pm:
Fake radio with no ratings, fake policy group, fake policy institute people. No one cares.
- Clyde Jackson - Monday, Sep 19, 16 @ 2:52 pm:
What about enforcing the laws already on the books? How about doing something with bicyclists who weave in and out of traffic, dont stop, and are updating their FaceSnapGrindr status at the same time? The same thing with automobile drivers.
- thechampaignlife - Monday, Sep 19, 16 @ 3:37 pm:
They may not be perfect, but the real danger lies in driver-led cars. One Tesla fatality per how many miles? How many driver-led fatalities were there for the same number of miles?
- Anon - Monday, Sep 19, 16 @ 3:38 pm:
You should know what to expect from Proft. And Amy’s developed a bit of an edge since she left TV.
I’d rather see a city income tax — as in many cities around the country — than Rahm’s parade of regressive tax hikes.
- Stringer Bell - Monday, Sep 19, 16 @ 3:45 pm:
thechampaignlife nails it - how many pedestrian fatalities are there in a single year in Chicago? Any city leader that was smart would be lobbying for Chicago to be high on the list of next cities up for Uber’s “experiment”. If you actually read about it - they’re doing it in a very smart way, with engineers in the front seats collecting data. They won’t be truly driverless for a few years at least - but banning the technology is simply dumb.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Sep 19, 16 @ 3:53 pm:
Driverless cars are the only paradigm-changing transportation solution that appears doable in the future. Building new stuff or even modernizing old stuff, whether highways, high speed or commuter railroads, or airports, has proven to be incredibly expensive, politically charged, and takes forever, though there will always be incremental projects to fix or improve what we’ve got by a little bit. We’ll see, but my bet is that we will notice a pretty big difference in the way we drive and own cars (or not) by 2030.
- Twirling Towards Freedom - Monday, Sep 19, 16 @ 4:23 pm:
While it is no doubt true that no technology is “100% safe”, the relevant question is not whether driverless cars are 100% safe. The relevant question is whether driverless cars are as safe or safer than cars with drivers. I don’t know the answer to that, but banning driverless cars because they are not 100% safe is silly.
- downstater - Monday, Sep 19, 16 @ 4:51 pm:
Burke really got owned in that interview.
- Anonymous - Monday, Sep 19, 16 @ 5:46 pm:
The real reason is personal injury lawyers are petrified that their business will dry up if cars are driverless. Once perfected a lot fewer and less serious accidents.