ReeferMadness

Agenda 21? :rolleyes: You think black helicopters are going to take away your cars? Nothing happens right away but when it insurers start to drop rates for self driving cars and raise them for people, it will have an impact.

People are horrible drivers. They lack sufficient attention span, they don't make good assessments of risk, many of them lack the basic skills required to properly judge speed and distance. Many lack confidence. Some treat driving as just a self-controlled amusement ride. Potentially a million deaths a year could be saved by self driving vehicles.

It's not just costs. It's costs plus convenience. Uber is not just a low cost cab company - it's a different business model. And once the cost of the driver disappears, it becomes a whole new game. People who own a self driving car but don't need it for a few hours could make extra money by leasing it to Uber for rides. Ooooh. Pulling out your much superior engineering mind again, eh? Well, you should call those guys running the pilot right away because I'm sure they haven't thought of any of those things!! They could probably use your big brain to tell them what a bunch of morons they are.

Yup. And thanks to the imperfections of geological science and the dysfunctions of capitalism, OPEC and international politics, nobody has the real information on how much oil is really in the reserves or how much will be produced. To date, the prices have been beaten down by overproduction due to all of the companies grimly hanging on hoping to drive each other into bankruptcy. The Saudis and other low cost producers are looking to drive the high priced producers out the market and eventually it will work. Already, companies are dropping their capital expenditures in drilling new wells. And the production of fracked wells peaks and drops off much more quickly than conventional wells. So what will happen is production will collapse even as demand starts to take off. This will cause the price to swing like a drunk cyclist riding on a ship in a storm. I wouldn't be surprised to see the price of oil up over $200 in a couple of years.

omg... is it possible that your level of cynicism is actually.... INCREASING? Weren't you at level 11 already?

That's the low end of the spectrum - what percentage of the population drive a small car? A lot of people out there are driving pickup trucks and SUV's. It's the taxi drivers that are the source of a lot of regulation and it's the taxi drivers that are slowing companies like Uber from getting into the market. Once the drivers disappear, there will be no reason for quotas or a lot of the regulation, insurance and other overhead that makes cabs so expensive. Your 1/3 estimate is too low. Maybe but that's a big if. Certainly the big auto makers hope like hell that you're right but you may not be. If driverless electric cars dropped prices the way I think they probably would, I'd give up my car - it wouldn't make sense to own one. Your posts are based on the very latest in 1970's transportation concepts. Google, Uber, the company that is paying for the Israel pilot - they're betting otherwise.

Maybe. But the good news is that they couldn't possibly make it any worse than prohibition.

k... I said there COULD be reasons but I don't speak for the Liberals. Go and ask them. However, I will say that I'm not in favor of anything that could potentially sidetrack full legalization. If you think you have a great idea, fine but nobody here can help you with that.

Cars sit unused about 95% of the time. That means that the depreciation cost of your car is roughly 20 times what it could optimally be. Even allowing for downtime due to traffic peaks and maintenance, these companies could probably still achieve a 3-5 times better utilization rate than private ownership. On top of that, companies that own fleets of cars can get much better pricing, lower rates for financing, less expensive repairs and lower insurance costs. Finally, lots of people spend hundreds of dollars every month for parking - money that would be instantly saved under this model. It doesn't even end there. Right now, if you sink 40 grand into a pickup truck, you are stuck driving a 3 ton vehicle even when you're hauling nothing but yourself. Under a driverless model, you could have the type of vehicle you need when you need it. The big auto manufacturers must be crapping themselves at the prospect of this type of model and I'm sure they will do everything they can to continue the private ownership model, as inefficient as it is. It remains to be seen whether people will be smart enough to not be sucked in. First of all, this will be a form of personal vehicle transport. Each car is independent. Second, this will actually be more efficient space-wise, than building roads. Third, this clearly is intended only for dense urban settings. However, it could be a cost-effective way of bridging the gap between the driverless taxis on the road and the need for additional peak time capacity.

It's a smart move because Blair will be best positioned to face down the law-and-order freaks who will oppose this. He will carry credibility when he says that prohibition is counter-productive. I have to wonder if this is a big part of the reason Trudeau recruited him.

1. It may not be as easy as you claim and they may not want to waste time on an interim step. 2. They may be concerned that decriminalization may give legalization opponents to convince the public that's good enough and there is no reason to legalize 3. If they decriminalized, it would be interpreted by many as a sign that they never intended to legalize and they would feel betrayed. Look at Huxley's reaction to a random media story which had nothing to do with the Liberals. It's like I said - suggest it to the Liberals.

Might not be a bad idea - suggest it to them. I can think of reasons they wouldn't want to go that way but let me know what they say.

No idea how long you expect your lifetime to be. But there are already vehicles that are capable of driving themselves in a limited capacity on public roads and completely autonomous vehicles on private roads. And there is a compelling business case to replace professional drivers. So, I would say that if you plan on living more than 20 years, you will find it increasingly expensive to do your own driving. That's present day thinking, though there is a certain degree of correctness in what you say. Certainly, the number of cars on the road need to be sufficient for peak traffic but that doesn't mean that we need the same number of cars as today. Not everyone drives to work at exactly the same time so there is a degree of potential reuse even in the core hours (say 7am - 9am and 4pm - 6pm). There is also greater potential for ride sharing (the automated cab could provide discounted rides to several people who have similar commutes). Also, the transportation of the future may evolve as new technology allows greater flexibility. For example, there is a pilot project in Israel where independent monorail cars will take you to any point along their route. Like Uber, you arrange for a pickup with your smart phone.

Are you implying that the economy would be less geared towards the stinking rich with less government interference?

So, I think you, like Huxley, need to give Trudeau and the Libs a chance. It won't be too late to criticize them for what the actually do rather than what you fear they might do. I see this turning out to be like the beer industry which wouldn't be such a bad thing. Most of the product will be mass produced by big business which can squeeze costs. Some 'craft pot' will be produced by smaller companies (just like the craft brew industry today). And you will be able to grow a couple plants in your backyard. But most people don't make their own beer or grow their own carrots. And most people won't grow their own pot. One last thing. The greatest health risk I see in all of this is the potency and the attendant potential for health risks. Today's pot is much more potent than it used to be and there is some evidence that the increased potency translates into increased health risk. It would only take a few bad outcomes to allow all the law-and-order freaks out there to turn public opinion. The government needs to gather some scientific evidence and set rules on potency - and those rules need to apply across the board.

A 30% increase!

Maybe, if there are any people who are afraid of guns. I'm not, though - I grew up around guns. And was taught a healthy respect for them. Which didn't include walking around with an Uzi just in case a rabid chipmunk or trespassing girl guide popped up in front of me.

The ones who like to carry guns should stay.

Winning by outraging all of the disengaged, no-nothings will be a hollow victory. If you really want to win, you need to do it in a way that educates people. I don't know how you get there from here.

I truly believe that anyone who has to carry around a gun to feel safe has issues and should seek professional help. That's funny because the words "mentally disturbed people" immediately come to mind when I see a picture of some hillbilly carrying a gun wearing a t-shirt that says "The tree of liberty" at a presidential rally.

Well, you seem to have a need for crazy laws and they already have them. Just seems like a natural fit.

That seems like a lot of bother. It might be easier if you just moved to Texas. Then you could test your knowledge of the US constitution by shooting the meter reader. they already have F-35's so it would be a perfect fit. Let us all know how that works out.

Well, if you hate proportional representation and referendums have been shown to prevent it, then it only makes sense that referendums are necessary. Pretty obvious, I think.

Here. The full results of the poll weren't printed in this story but a significant percentage of the voters admitted they knew absolutely nothing about STV. This was after a million dollars in public funds had been spent by the yes and no campaigns. Additionally, But for me, here's the kicker Tell me how, if 3/4 think it's unacceptable to get a majority of the seats without a majority of the vote, 62% can vote against PR. It's simple. They don't understand STV and frankly, they don't even really understand FPTP.

Here is a quote from one of my posts above Either you don't bother reading or you have comprehension issues.