The average cost of car ownership is $0.69 per mile without insurance, $0.25 per mile to store it, and $0.49 per mile in societal costs (death, injuries, delays due to accidents). So about $1.43 per mile. I do not enjoy driving, so would add more cost per mile, maybe some would want to pay more but I do t see that much joyriding outside of teenagers and classic car enthusiasts, so I don’t think those that do it for pleasure is a large population.
Tesla cybercab is targeting $0.20 per mile. Waymo projections are $0.40 per mile by 2030. Assuming both hit $0.50 and are twice as safe, this is basically $0.75 per mile.
I don’t see may paying more to drive themselves. And I think as society there will be non economic reasons human driven cars get banned. Like MADD but for human cars.
So I expect 5 years and human cars will not make sense in many cases, 10 years new human car sales to be <50% current levels, 15 years you start seeing bans. 20 years bans common.
That's by design, and that's a good thing. Anything where the person actually driving the car can't be identified (i.e., tickets given by camera as opposed to in-person) shouldn't have any long term affect on anyone's personal records.
Yes, there is a distinction. But it’s irrelevant in this case because you can be ticketed for either. The speeding ticket goes to the registered owner and there are no demerit points as there is no proof of driver identity.
No, there is a difference. Parking tickets are civil infractions that can only result in a fine (or in some cases a tow, but let’s not get lost in the weeds). Running a red light, on the other hand, is a moving violation committed by the _driver_ specifically, not the owner of the vehicle. Moving violations can result in criminal penalties. Sending a ticket to the owner of the vehicle and then making them defend themselves is unconstitutional.
Look, I get it. You guys are all European and think it’s perfectly normal to have to defend yourself when the government assumes that you are guilty. But here in the USA we have protections against that. The government _must_ assume that you are innocent until they can _prove_ that you are guilty. That includes not assuming that the owner of the vehicle was the one driving it, no matter how common that scenario is.
I’m not European. Many countries have speed cameras.
It differs how you’re caught. We treat a red light camera or speed camera violation as an infringement offence, like parking. If you’re pulled over, you can have your license suspended or be charged with reckless driving on the spot, because they know who you are.
There’s no case, and no guilt, just a penalty. It’s not about guilt but responsibility. You’re responsible for the car when it’s registered to you.
If you want an analogue, try carpool lane tickets. Same thing.
If your country’s law says that the owner of the car commits a crime if the driver runs a red light, then ticketing the owner makes perfect sense. But in Florida the law says that the _driver_ has committed the crime. Therefore the _driver_ must be ticketed, not the owner.
It’s not a crime, it’s an infringement (NZ) or civil infraction (FL), and there’s no criminal record associated. There’s a material difference between an infraction and a crime.
This is so silly. Do you really not have any hobbies where you spend inordinate time or money on things you could objectively accomplish quicker and cheaper, but having less fun, in other ways? Like, I ski. It’s a silly way to get up and down a hill in the 21st century.
I’m not a watch guy. But mechanical watches are beautiful. There are idiots who buy them. But that doesn’t mean everyone who does is an idiot.
Collecting watches isn't a hobby, it's pure consumerism. Sure many hobbies have (recently?) gotten way more people spending top dollars for no reason but with watch collecting there's nothing else. You're not tweaking the dials, you don't know how to make the watch, you just watch it and wear it while a technologically superior version is 500 times cheaper. There's also no natural shortage of them, they can make a trillion of these watches.
At least with cars or audio equipment there's some marginal benefits once you get to crazy numbers, not the case with watches.
What is wrong with watch consumerism? It isn't like it's ruining the planet and hurting anyone. Like you said, there is no shortage and nobody will die without them.
> You're not tweaking the dials, you don't know how to make the watch, you just watch it and wear it while a technologically superior version is 500 times cheaper
This describes precisely zero watch enthusiasts I know. Each of them can open up the watch and understand what's happening. In one case, he'll disassemble the major components to clean them. (Analogous to how riders can take care of their horses and gear, or I can tune and wax my skis.)
Your dismissal could be just as accurately be applied to the various programming languages many of us learn for fun. We don't know how to write its compiler. We can barely do anything useful in it. We just play with it while a technologically-superior version would take a fraction of the effort.
> There's also no natural shortage of them, they can make a trillion of these watches
> At least with cars or audio equipment there's some marginal benefits once you get to crazy numbers, not the case with watches
As an enthusiast of neither cars nor watches, I call total bullshit on this comparison. Anyone arguing they're getting utility out of their Ferrarri, Pagani, Omega or Audemars is full of themselves.
Also the fact that most people (the vast majority even) will never be affected by having their location data shared so they just don't care, myself included.
There are things that have never happened before in the 250 year history of the United States.
No sitting president has ever enriched themselves by billions of dollars.
We’re in a completely different universe from the days when Jimmy Carter put his peanut farm in a blind trust so there would be no appearance of a conflict of interest.
Or when Lincoln was given some gifts from the King of Siam. Because of the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution, he went to Congress to check if he could keep them. Congress said no; Lincoln donated them.
It was understood a president could be prosecuted if he broke the law—that’s why Nixon needed to be pardoned by Ford; otherwise, he would have faced at least some consequences.
SCOTUS did a 180 degree turn by ruling a precedent is immune from prosecution for crimes committed in office.
SCOTUS just made that up out of thin air.
All of this and much more is unprecedented.
Last one: no president has ever gone to war without making a case for it to the country.
So no, what’s happening now is not the same old thing.
The funny thing about the light is that it doesn't even matter when surreptitious recording devices are trivial to make these days. You can never know when you're being recorded, even when no one is wearing glasses.
reply