To get the most out of self-driving cars, tap the brakes on their rollout

January 3, 2018 by Jack Barkenbus, The Conversation
It would be better if people weren’t afraid of self-driving cars. Credit: mato181/Shutterstock.com

Every day about 100 people die in car crashes on U.S. roads. That death toll is a major reason why both Congress and the Trump administration are backing automotive efforts to develop and deploy self-driving cars as quickly as possible.

However, officials' eagerness far exceeds the degree to which the public views this as a serious concern, and overestimates the public's willingness to see its driving patterns radically altered. As those of us involved in studies of technology and society have come to understand, foisting a technical fix on a skeptical public can lead to a backlash that sets back the cause indefinitely. The backlash over nuclear power and are exemplary of the problems that arise from rushing technology in the face of public fears. Public safety on the roads is too important to chance consumer backlash.

I recommend industry, government and consumers take a more measured and incremental approach to full autonomy. Initially emphasizing technologies that can assist human drivers – rather than the abilities of cars to drive themselves – will somewhat delay the day all those lives are saved on U.S. roads. But it will start saving some lives right away, and is more likely to avoid mass rejection of the new technology.

Not so fast

Most Americans are indifferent to what officials and safety advocates see as a serious problem. They react in horror to the deaths of even a few dozen passengers in a relatively infrequent airline crash but think little about the 100 lives lost daily from driving. The rewards from driving, such as personal freedom and convenience, overwhelm fears. In fact, most people believe their driving skills are better than average, making them more likely to think they'll avoid the tragedies that befall others.

As a result, the push for autonomous driving on the basis of improved safety is a solution to a situation the public doesn't consider a serious problem. We know from the studies of psychologist Paul Slovic that the public is very uncomfortable with novel technologies that cede human control to machines. This is particularly true, in a phenomenon called "betrayal aversion," when the benefits of technologies are overpromised and reality doesn't appear to be consistent with those expectations. Unless self-driving cars can dramatically reduce fatalities, the public may remain skeptical.

Serious safety concerns

Surveys show the American public is far from sold on the safety benefits of . A recent survey by the Pew Research Center revealed that more than half of the American public would be worried about riding in an autonomous vehicle due to concerns over safety and the lack of control.

Another survey found that only 15 percent of people would prefer autonomous vehicles to traditional human-driven cars. It's true that some groups (men, people with more education and people under 45) are less worried than others, but these differences of opinion are less significant than the overall public view. Aside from simply the fear of being in these vehicles without the option of control, much of the American public still relishes the joy of the driving experience.

Public fears may ease as people become familiar with self-driving cars, but this experience needs to be gained gradually over time. The mental chasm between having complete control over the vehicle to the complete absence of control is huge. Consumer advocates are already warning public officials that federal laws and rules designed to hasten the movement to autonomy are too permissive, and risk triggering a public backlash.

A steady stream of crashes, both serious and minor, would simply reinforce public fears that self-driving cars are not safe. The media, sensitive to these fears, will be eager to cry betrayal when there is a contradiction between these accidents and the technology's rationale. And politicians, wanting to be seen as protectors of public health, may promote a new "Make America Drive Again" movement.

To avoid public backlash or overreaction, industry and government should not rush, but rather move more deliberately toward deploying fully autonomous cars on U.S. roads. There is still much the industry can do in terms of cutting-edge technology to assist drivers. Innovations such as adaptive cruise control and automatic emergency braking already have considerable public support and will work to acclimate the public to more advanced stages of driver autonomy.

Government and industry are right to continue inventing and innovating technologies that can contribute to autonomous vehicles. But rather than racing to get on U.S. roads, they should slow the rollout down to a pace the public can adjust to. That way, the benefits can be both real and long-lasting.

Explore further: Volvo to supply Uber with self-driving cars (Update)

Related Stories

Volvo to supply Uber with self-driving cars (Update)

November 20, 2017

Swedish carmaker Volvo Cars said Monday it has signed an agreement to supply "tens of thousands" of self-driving cars to Uber, as the ride-sharing company battles a number of different controversies.

House passes bill to speed deployment of self-driving cars

September 6, 2017

The House voted Wednesday to speed the introduction of self-driving cars by giving the federal government authority to exempt automakers from safety standards not applicable to the technology, and to permit deployment of ...

US expected to update self-driving car guidelines

September 12, 2017

The Trump administration on Tuesday unveiled updated safety guidelines for self-driving cars in an attempt to clear barriers for automakers and tech companies wanting to get test vehicles on the road.

Recommended for you

EU copyright law passes key hurdle

June 20, 2018

A highly disputed European copyright law that could force online platforms such as Google and Facebook to pay for links to news content passed a key hurdle in the European Parliament on Wednesday.

56 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rderkis
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
I heard a estimate by one of our leading thinkers say, vary recently, that once autonomous cars are in full supply, they will be 10 times cheaper to own. When that happens watch how fast public option changes.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
I don't see how a shift can happen quickly. For one the legal aspect of shifting the entire burden of responsibility for any accident from the driver/owner to the supplier is huge.

They will need to be insured against this which will drive up costs. With the dropping real income I don't see how driverless cars can be made affordable under such circumstances in the near future for a wide public. Maybe for the rich - but there even a single incident will get high publicity. Not sure automakers will want to take the risk of that kind of PR.
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
In fact, most people believe their driving skills are better than average, making them more likely to think they'll avoid the tragedies that befall others.


That is not faulty thinking - it's true - because the propensity to have an accident is not directly proportional to the driver's skill.

The same few bad drivers get involved in multiple accidents and incidents, such as repeat DUI offenders, which makes the statistics worse for the rest of the drivers. Hence, most drivers are less likely to get into an accident than the statistically average driver.

Secondly, being better at driving has a saturation point. Once you're not at risk of crashing due to your own fault, such as careless driving and inattention, what more can you do? That levels the differences in outcome between the good drivers and increases the contrast to the bad drivers.

Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
For example, let's make up a distribution of the number of accidents per driver over some arbitrary period. The distribution for a sample of 10 drivers might go something like this

0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,3,6

The average driver of this sample is involved in 1.1 accidents, and in this sample 8/10 drivers are better than that. The two lousy drivers just bring the average up for everybody. This is how the majority of drivers can be better than the average driver.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2018
I remember some old statistics that the lifetime odds of dying in a car accident is 1:50. So let's take the 10 closest friends you have: there's 81% probability that none of them will die in a car crash, but two of them will know somebody who did. The real effect would be even less due to the statistical bias, where most of the actual risk is borne by the bad drivers, but it is counted to apply to all drivers equally.

It's like calculating your lifetime risk of lung cancer without considering that some people are smokers and others aren't. This is why the issue is not seen as a serious problem. It just doesn't touch most people.

It's also disingenuous to point at how people are horrified by plane crashes. It's because they're socially expected to display horror whenever the media puts out news of disasters. If they didn't, we'd judge them.

Eikka
not rated yet Jan 04, 2018
The backlash over nuclear power and genetically modified organisms are exemplary of the problems that arise from rushing technology in the face of public fears.


If we forget about the vast astroturfing efforts by the politically motivated.

The row over GMOs has less to do with the GMOs and more to do with the fact that the newly engineered organisms could be patented, which gave a monopoly to companies like Monsanto, so the political opponents to such practices started spreading misinformation about GMOs on the side.

Likewise with nuclear power, or like how today Russia is funding anti-fracking protesters in Europe to keep competitors off the gas market. What the government sees as public opposition is not always true.

No "soft start" would have helped, because the fear came from a small number of demagogs with ulterior motives, and playing along to those fears would have only legitimized their "concerns".
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 04, 2018
insured against this which will drive up costs
You dont understand - insurance companies love these things because they will absolutely reduce the number of accidents and injuries. Insurance for driver cars will skyrocket.
same few bad drivers get involved in multiple accidents and incidents, such as repeat DUI offenders
You can make up all the 'statistics' you want. The fact is, these cars are already much safer, and will continue to improve with experience unlike their human counterparts.

"The backlash over nuclear power"

-There was little resistance back when nukes were being built because public attention was diverted by the Vietnam war. People who would have been protesting and voting, were busy getting high and disparaging the president.

And when quotas were reached, suddenly there was a media-orchestrated outcry.

Sound familiar?

Most people aren't even aware of these things, nor of AI, which will be taking most of their jobs.

See how things work?
MR166
not rated yet Jan 04, 2018
The easiest step would be car to car communication and distance sensing. Most of the 2 car fatal accidents could be avoided if just this little bit of automation were added. It would also help avoid most multi-car pile ups on highways.

I just don't know how autonomous cars will integrate into heavy city traffic. I could see these cars being cut off every 2 seconds once drevers understand they are programmed to stop. They will never be able to even make a right turn in NYC due to aggressive pedestrians and cause huge gridlock.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 04, 2018
The law of the road in NYC rush hour, which is most of the time, is do what you want just don't hit anybody or anything. To change lanes you pretty much have to cut someone off much of the time and that is fine since everyone goes by the same rules. I don't know if an autonomous car can legally be programmed to do that.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 04, 2018
Also, as I have commented before, there is the speed limit issue. Speed limits are set to enable the most unskilled drivers to travel safely under most conditions such as nighttime rain and blind hills and curves. 95% of the drivers ignore them until they see a cop. The few that do follow them are a real source of irritation and actually create a hazard. How can an autonomous car legally be programmed to go over the limit. People will cut them off and due dangerous things to avoid being behind them.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 04, 2018
Now I know the progressive solution will be to use these vehicles as little mini-cops and have the cars relay speeding data to the central government for ticket issuance.

Now if the governments would allow these cars to drive faster and in some cases a lot faster than regular vehicles due to their communication skills, faster reaction times, 100% alertness and better sensors they would be adopted by the general public much more quickly.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 04, 2018
The fact is, these cars are already much safer, and will continue to improve with experience unlike their human counterparts.


(evidence missing)

There's two versions of self-driving vehicles on the road right now: the lane-assisted version which needs constant babysitting and hands on the wheel or else it kills everybody, and the virtual railroad Google car which gets completely confused whenever there's a deviation from its pre-programmed conditions.

Neither of those versions are safer than human drivers. The metrics used to argue that they are safer are false metrics, because they're not held up to the same requirements of performance as human drivers.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 04, 2018
Speed limits are set to enable the most unskilled drivers to travel safely under most conditions such as nighttime rain and blind hills and curves.


Speed limits are set for a multitude of reasons, including noise levels around the road, and road surface wear.

For safety reasons, stopping distance is one. No matter how good a driver you are, you can't beat physics or develop superhuman reaction times. Impact energy is another reason, because even the best drivers are sometimes faced with the bad drivers, and some number of crashes is essentially unavoidable.

Often speed limits are set by "concerned citizens" who are whining to the councils, who in turn set lower speed limits to please and to collect speeding tickets - but that doesn't mean speed limits are totally meaningless or "for the bad drivers only".
MR166
not rated yet Jan 04, 2018
"For safety reasons, stopping distance is one."

That is the main thing that limits a safe speed. Parked cars, blind curves and hills all limit visibility. I always slow down when I cannot see what is ahead. That is pretty hard to codify thus speed limits are lowered more than necessary. I find most sane people drive the speed that they are comfortable with. When limited access highway limits are set to 70 or 75 MPH fewer people speed, speed differentials go down meaning very few drive faster or slower. Set the same highway limit to say 55 MPH and it is bedlam. Speeds are all over the place and many drivers are making unsafe passes due to impatience.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2018
I always slow down when I cannot see what is ahead.


But according to your own argument, that's dangerous because the problems come from people going at different speeds. The people behind you don't necessarily agree that this was the place to slow down, or see the reason why you are slowing down, so you're creating a disruption in the traffic flow and causing a hazard.

It's safer for all to go the same speed, than rubberneck around. It also saves fuel to avoid unnecessary accelerations, and makes it easier for joining traffic to merge when they can trust the traffic to flow along at a predictable rate.

Therefore, according to the very points you raised, if the current traffic speed requires people to slow down occasionally to remain safe, the speed is too high. The correct speed is what you can maintain along the entire lenght of the road without deviation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 05, 2018
(evidence misding due to lack of looking)
"Waymo has logged over two million miles on U.S. streets and has only had fault in one accident, making its cars by far the lowest at-fault rate of any driver class on the road— about 10 times lower than our safest demographic of human drivers (60–69 year-olds) and 40 times lower than new drivers, not to mention the obvious benefits gained from eliminating drunk drivers."
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 05, 2018
"Waymo... reached an important milestone recently: since mid-October, the company has been operating its autonomous minivans on public roads in Arizona without a safety driver — or any human at all — behind the wheel.

"Waymo's vehicles have a knack for getting hit by human drivers. When we look at total accidents (at fault and not), the Waymo accident rate is higher than the accident rate of most experienced drivers (Figure 1). Most of these accidents are fender-benders caused by humans, with no fatalities or serious injuries. The leading theory is that Waymo's vehicles adhere to the letter of traffic law, leading them to brake for things they are legally supposed to brake for (e.g., pedestrians approaching crosswalks).

"Since human drivers are not used to this lawful behavior, it leads to a higher rate of rear-end collisions (where the human driver is at-fault)."

-Humans are a pox on the highways. We finally have a cure.

Maybe if eikka drove more he would believe.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 05, 2018
"Since human drivers are not used to this lawful behavior, it leads to a higher rate of rear-end collisions (where the human driver is at-fault)."

-And to solve this waymo just needs to learn the art of defensive brake-checking, as well as tailgater recording and reporting. And once learned, all cars will know. And they will never forget, only improve upon forever.
The correct speed is what you can maintain along the entire lenght of the road without deviation
-which is typically 15mph above the legal limit.

You really don't drive much do you?
https://youtu.be/Yxtg5ZcphlM

-spend some hours entertaining yourself with vids of idiot drivers. Maybe this will help.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 05, 2018
car to car communication
Here's one vid that illustrates just how invaluable this would be
https://youtu.be/fKpCAZy4IXg

-word would quickly spread among cars and they would begin braking and pulling off long before they got into trouble.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 05, 2018
Imagine what automatic recording and reporting could do. Alerted cars could track and report the location of lawbreakers until they were caught. It would be like roads full of mobile traffic cams, reading licence plates, identifying stolen vehicles and hit-and-runs.

Self driving cars would make the roads safer not only by the way they drove but by assisting in the removal of drivers who shouldn't be out there to begin with.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2018
"Alerted cars could track and report the location of lawbreakers until they were caught. It would be like roads full of mobile traffic cams, reading licence plates, identifying stolen vehicles and hit-and-runs."

Think about what you just said Otto and how this could be misused by governments. Yea it would do some good but do you really want to get tickets issued by cash starved governments every time you go say 2 mph over the speed limit. Do you really want them to track you movements and note that you went to a disfavored political rally or visited the home of an adversary of your local mayor. The next step is to place a GPS tracking chip in everyone for their safety of course. Yea that last bit was sarcasm also. The don't really give a Sh!t about your safety just theirs.
rderkis
1 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2018
You don't mean "The don't really give a Sh!t about your safety just theirs".What you really mean is "They don't really give a Sh!t about MY safety just theirs". Obviously paranoid.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 07, 2018
I know that there are certain people who will gladly get chipped. Not me, I remember when people came to America with number tattoos on their arm from the Natzi prison camps.
rderkis
1 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2018
Your right, I would gladly get chipped if it had some real advantages for me. And so would paranoid people like you if it meant enough savings on your insurance rates or a big tax reduction. People sell their privacy pretty cheaply.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 10, 2018
Yea it would do some good but do you really want to get tickets issued by cash starved governments every time you go say 2 mph over the speed limit
I don't want to get tickets at all. But I know cops won't ticket me unless I'm 5-8mph over.
Do you really want them to track you movements and note that you went to a disfavored political rally or visited the home of an adversary of your local mayor
It will be much easier to control illegal surveillance when everybody is surveilled.

"We're expanding the data sphere to sci-fi levels and there's no stopping it. Too many of the benefits we covet derive from it. So our central choice now is whether this surveillance is a secret, one-way panopticon -- or a mutual, transparent kind of "coveillance" that involves watching the watchers. The first option is hell, the second redeemable... Amplified coveillance will shift society to become even more social; more importantly it will change how we define ourselves as humans."
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 10, 2018
know that there are certain people who will gladly get chipped. Not me, I remember when people came to America with number tattoos on their arm from the Natzi prison camps
Christ not the nazees again.
https://youtu.be/LGauZm2pOSQ

-True freedom is freedom from liars, cheats, and victimizers. Freedom from criminals.

You want to get rid of guns? This is a way of getting rid of the necessity of them. Even gunphobes will be able to trust gun owners, who themselves no longer need them for protection.

Just fun.
https://youtu.be/e3-3cyMc4CY
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2018
"I don't want to get tickets at all. But I know cops won't ticket me unless I'm 5-8mph over."

Oh yea, how about the red light cams where the standard yellow caution light duration is purposely shortened to increase revenues.

The governments ability to use electronic monitoring for nefarious political purposes far outweighs any benefits.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 10, 2018
Also, If you drive on a highway sometimes one needs to go faster than 5 to 8 over for a few hundred feet in order to pass safely. Do you really want 100% non discretionary electronic enforcement of every law on the books. Think about it before you answer.
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2018
"Even gunphobes will be able to trust gun owners, who themselves no longer need them for protection."

Nope. I do not want to be a the mercy of anybody's mental health on any particular day. I will never trust you or the others with guns.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 10, 2018
Also, If you drive on a highway sometimes one needs to go faster than 5 to 8 over for a few hundred feet in order to pass safely
Universal coveillance makes it much easier to provide reasonable accommodations to such quibbles
Do you really want 100% non discretionary electronic enforcement of every law on the books. Think about it before you answer
Whirr buzz click click I just did and my answer is that I would trust the machine much more than the human cop who would pull you over just because he wanted to get a better look at your wife. That's his discretionary prerogative.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2018
Nope. I do not want to be a the mercy of anybody's mental health on any particular day. I will never trust you or the others with guns
Understandable for psychopaths who perhaps have more to fear from lawful gun owners than anyone else.

Universal coveillance would be as much for your protection as theirs I would suspect.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 10, 2018
"Christ not the nazees again."

Yup history has a way of repeating itself. Individuals and companies can again be fined for expressing opinions that are contrary to government policies in Germany. Dissent is considered punishable "Hate Speech".

I don't really mind if you get the government that you deserve. I just mind if I and my children get the government that you deserve.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2018
"Understandable for psychopaths who perhaps have more to fear from lawful gun owners than anyone else."

Those who are constantly bringing up psychopathy remind me of Trump calling everyone else a liar.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2018
Yup history has a way of repeating itself. Individuals and companies can again be fined for expressing opinions that are contrary to government policies in Germany
-And people here can be fired here for being politically incorrect.

"James Damore sues Google, alleging intolerance of white male conservatives"

And people in France and Germany can be arrested for wearing swastikas.

The point is, universal coveillance isn't Nazism. Better ways of enforcing existing laws only angers people who think they have the right to break them whenever they feel like it.

Universal coveillance would for instance instantly identify trends in racial profiling, something that at the moment can only be proven in court.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2018
"Universal coveillance would for instance instantly identify trends in racial profiling, something that at the moment can only be proven in court."

There is an old saying from WWII, "First they came for them, Then they came for me."

The people of Venezuela got the government they deserved. Who is next?

When one is willing to sacrifice individual freedoms for the collective state the results are always the same.

Otto how would you like to be issued a fine every time that you broke a law even if it was unintentional, through ignorance or by pure accident? Since it is all to easy to label differing opinions as "Hate Speech" should you be penalized for a private conversation or prevented from running for office?

100% electronic enforcement of laws with no chance of privacy is a totalitarian nightmare.
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2018
"When one is willing to sacrifice individual freedoms for the collective state the results are always the same."

Who inflicted the Republican Police State on us after their Criminal Negligence on 9/11?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2018
There is an old saying from WWII, "First they came for them, Then they came for me."
The cops are already coming for you if you break the law. Technology over the years has made it easier and easier to find you and convict you.

Making it harder for you to break the law and get away with it is not Nazism. It's freedom and security for the law abiding.
100% electronic enforcement of laws with no chance of privacy is a totalitarian nightmare
No chance of privacy for criminals. If you didnt think as much in brainless slogans from the last century you would aappreciate this.

I mean look at the brainless psychopath gkam. His posts are nothing BUT slogans.

It's like the squeals of a pig in a pen.
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2018
"Oh look, . . it is the other people who are psychopaths!"

Pure Trumpism.
rderkis
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2018
Quote MR166 "Otto how would you like to be issued a fine every time that you broke a law even if it was unintentional, through ignorance or by pure accident?"

I personally would love it! A great man once said something like "It's not the severity of the punishment as much as the certainty of getting caught the deters crime."
Of course people trying to get away with breaking the law and those that don't care enough to pay attention hate the idea.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 10, 2018
Otto how would you like to be issued a fine every time that you broke a law even if it was unintentional, through ignorance or by pure accident?
Like I said equitable accomodations are much easier to build into laws enforced by machines. Laws that can be applied equally to everyone.

You're just the typical human who wants to be able to argue their way out of a ticket. You should beware of the human cop who may want to break your arm because you tried to do so.

Like this poor woman
https://www.usato...9777001/
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2018
"I personally would love it! "

Yes, . . just like the punishers in Kafka's Penal Colony.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2018
"You're just the typical human who wants to be able to argue their way out of a ticket. You should beware of the human cop who may want to break your arm because you tried to do so."

I am sick and tired of the BLM BS. Considering the amount of interactions the police have with people everyday and the dangers involved 99.9% do a great job. Yes, the .1% need to be severely dealt with and covering for this small group leads to the majority of unrest. Just as the covering for criminals in the cities leads to over reaction by some police. The lie of " Hands up don't shoot" is a prime example of how to make crime worse in your neighborhood and create a police force that is abusive.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 10, 2018
Otto the link that you gave showing "brutality" just highlights the problem. When you resist arrest bad things happen. You want to enforce the laws and protect the citizens yet hate the people who do the actual enforcement and protection.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2018
"Yes, . . just like the punishers in Kafka's Penal Colony."

Wow Gkam I just gave you a 5. We are both on the same side of an issue, the world must be ending soon.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2018
What I do detest are the civil forfeiture laws which fly in the face of constitutional protections and the militarization of local police by the federal government. The proliferation of SWAT teams with military rifles patrolling the cities scares me more than private citizens owning guns. When the policeman becomes the soldierman governments have some serious social problems that need to be addressed
MR166
4 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2018
"Who inflicted the Republican Police State on us after their Criminal Negligence on 9/11?"

And who continued this police state and even made it more far reaching?

To think that this is confined to one party is sticking ones head in the ground.

If fact to think that there are really 2 parties anymore is really ignorant.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2018
Wow Gkam I just gave you a 5. We are both on the same side of an issue, the world must be ending soon
Yeah you both seem to have the compulsion to break the law when you can get away with it. It's a very human penchant. But one of the 2 of you is human, the other not quite so much.

"What distinguishes all of these people from the rest of us is an utterly empty hole in the psyche, where there should be the most evolved of all humanizing functions. [Martha Stout, Ph.D]"

"However, some researchers have begun to seriously consider the idea that it is important to study psychopathy not as an artificial clinical category but as a general personality trait in the community at large. In other words, psychopathy is being recognized as a more or less a different type of human."

"Cleckney... comes very close to suggesting that they are human in every respect - but that they lack a soul."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2018
And who continued this police state and even made it more far reaching?
So in your 'police state' what is the difference between a cop having to chase you down when you run a red light, endangering both himself and other people on the street; and a traffic cam or a chip in your car that does the same thing more safely and effectively?
Who inflicted the Republican Police State on us after their Criminal Negligence on 9/11?
Explain please just how you yourself have suffered under this oppression?
rderkis
not rated yet Jan 10, 2018
MR166 - Why is it with you paranoid types, that it is is always "their", "they" As in "their" against us. "They" are out to get us etc.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 10, 2018
RD you really don't understand the principles of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I really hope that you were not educated in the US. If you were then our educational system is beyond hope because it has totally failed to properly teach this country's history.
rderkis
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2018
Wow there is a first MR66. You used the term "OUR"! (Even if it was to put "OUR" country down in any manner you can.)
barakn
1 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2018
MR166 - Why is it with you paranoid types, that it is is always "their", "they" As in "their" against us.
It's actually "they're," not "their."
barakn
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2018
Your right, I would gladly get chipped if it had some real advantages for me. -rderkis
"Your" should be "You're." You must have skipped school the week they taught contractions.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 11, 2018
Ok I just had a great idea for promoting autonomous vehicles. Have them race against each other on NASCAR circuits. It would be fun to compare their speeds and styles to human drivers.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 11, 2018
Road racing tracks would be even more fun. What a great venue for high tech companies to display their smarts.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 12, 2018
Road racing tracks would be even more fun. What a great venue for high tech companies to display their smarts.
Le Mans or Daytona in 2025. Just like that old turbo car. A real paradigm shifter.

And, of course, it's already here.
https://www.theve...p-berlin

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.