By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

15 thoughts on “When you teach Gender Fluidity rather than History.”
  1. On the other hand, outlawing cars would certainly reduce traffic fatalities dramatically. That may be what Mr. Pete is aiming for.

    1. @pkoning: But it wouldn’t be zero.

      Ban all motorized vehicles!

      Oh wait, there were still deaths from ox-drawn and horse-drawn carts.

      Ban all wheels!

      If it saves one life…..

    2. And we have a WINNER!!!

      Zero cars = zero car deaths.

      This is Bootyjudge’s aim, since ever.

      Lieberals have been pro-bussing since I was a kid, and anti-car since Ralph Nader, at least.

  2. Single biggest highway safety payoff would be to eliminate mileage standards. Heavier cars protect their occupants better than lighter cars do.

    Sir Isaac Newton will not be denied.

  3. The single biggest highway safety payoff is to remove the driver from the car – autonomous vehicles will be the only real progress toward zero deaths.

    There’s nothing new under the sun here – highway safety has been an ongoing and continuous effort for decades – and what do we have to show for it today? Nearly 37,000 deaths a year … mostly because the driver wants to go too fast, or eat their hamburger and listen to tunes, or put on makeup or be impaired instead of piloting 2 tons worth of steel at speed.

    1. The problem with the “autonomous vehicle” notion is that it relies on AI being reliable, and there is no reason to believe that it can ever be. “AI” is a term that describes a class of software whose properties are not merely unknown but unknowable. That means, in particular, that its safety properties are unknowable; a responsible certifying agency could not certify an AI based autopilot because there is no way to ensure that it will operate correctly.

      I think a better answer (which requires a power plant technology not in existence and not in the foreseeable future either) would be the replacement of road traffic by air traffic. Autopilot IS a feasible technology there; the air traffic problem is vastly easier than the road traffic problem.

      1. I am not sure about air being safer than surface under similar conditions, that is, the majority of the traffic dominated by small privately owned vehicles. If all we had on the roads were trucks and busses we’d likely have less fatalities also.

        Assuming VTOL POVs, because otherwise we have the issue of getting people between airports and their (arbitrary) destination, and are back to surface transport, in addition to the far greater numbers of vehicles in the air we also introduce the problem of landing site. You still will need to recognize and avoid obstacles, etc. Simpler than ground level traffic, but still not trivial.

        And we also have the consequences of mechanical failure being more extreme when airborne.

        Interesting thought.

        1. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I was thinking about driverless (pilotless) airborne vehicles. The point is that collision avoidance in the air is a trivial problem, while on the ground it is very hard. No deer, no pedestrians to worry about in the air.
          Yes, VTOL. And ideally some sort of no-propeller craft, that’s partly what I was thinking about when I spoke of a not yet invented power plant.
          Airborne mechanical failure — that’s a solved problem, see Cirrus Aviation.

    2. Have you seen Tesla FSD beta in action? While the potential for controlled and inter communicating vehicles is there, the current state is terrifying. I also want the freedom to drive where and when I choose and not where the commissars dictate.

    3. Ignoring the grotesque opportunity for government to control when/where you go and for how long, I don’t think you have actual real world safety data under any sort of diverse, real world traffic situations that would back this up. I say this because I have looked and I can’t find anything that remotely seems statistically valid.

      Heck, a “self driving Uber” ran over and killed a woman crossing the street in Arizona a couple years back because it didn’t realize she was human.

      Citation, please.

    4. Call me when they perfect something far simpler: autonomous trains with zero fatalities. Then autonomous ships and airplanes.

      I wouldn’t hold my breath.

      Call me when they perfect a hard drive that never crashes. (That will be NEVER. And if they do, the cars do. QED. Please tell me this isn’t news to anyone.)

      Self-driving cars already have a body count, and the only thing dumber than a driver behind the wheel is an engineer 3000 miles away who’s not.

      When their standard answer for everything is “Oops! We didn’t think of that.” because they actually didn’t think of that, for any value of “that”.

      To err is human; to really foul things up takes a computer.

  4. Air traffic- good idea, so now when you collide you can add free fall due to gravity to the mix… as long as there are humans you will never get rid of fatalities. How about FELONY conviction for dui.. $5000 dollar fine for first offense “distracted” driving.
    How about REAL drivers education? As far as gubmint goes look up agenda 21 , gubmint wants you to take “ public transportation or ride a fukkin bicycle.

  5. There is a tension between freedom and safety. Freedom is dangerous. Freedom allows you to discover, and sometimes discoveries are dangerous. It allows you to choose, and some choices aren’t healthy. Every time I travel, I accept the risk that I may be a victim of a traffic accident. I do my best to avoid it, but sometimes, it is out of your hands. It’s the price I pay for the freedom to travel.

    There is no way that any kind of transportation will be 100% safe. That’s a fairy tale. This is less about concern for traffic deaths and more about a push toward government control of movement, whether through self-driving cars or punishment for drivers through exorbitant taxes. Freedom of movement makes people more difficult to control. This administration is all about control.

  6. In light of the above very interesting discussion….

    Perhaps it’s simpler if the powers-that-be just banned death.

    Then, anyone who flouts the law and dies can simply be fined and sentenced to, ah, eternity I suppose, with time off for voting Democrat.

    1. How about just requiring the dead’s names and d.o.b. be sent to all county voting registrars in the state, for placement on a permanent NO VOTE list?

      It’s not like it’s violating their privacy.

      They already fine the dead: it’s called an Estate Tax.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.