CrackedWindscreen, 9 months ago to random

Whilst there is a point in this article it is so riddled with issues and nuance that requires clarification and explanation the piece is utter garbage.

I am so bored of those pontificating about transportation and motoring know FUCK ALL about transportation and motoring.

This is wonderful #pseudointelectualism just ignore it. Which is a shame.

From: @bydnews
https://masto.ai/@bydnews/110791816180601564

CrackedWindscreen, 10 months ago to random

Kyle Vogt tweeted about taking a full page ad to say how BRILLIANT autonomous vehicles are and how bad humans are, with a stat.

Hello #Pseudointelectualism you're back. He uses a number stating how many people are killed on the roads because of human drivers.

1. only humans drive or are legally stated as driving so who else can it be compared to?
2. are all those deaths due to a human driver or any for, say, not wearing a seat belt or mechanical issues, maybe?

Desperate move by a con artist.

CrackedWindscreen, 11 months ago to random

Well this led me down a rabbit hole.
Headline is older Aussie drivers don't trust ADAS and how to get them too.
By checking just the first few cited research papers where 'the clear safety benefits' have been shown, you find they DO NOT do that. Surprise, surprise.
They use a lot of "could", "can" and "should". Because they don't know. Because there is no proof.

And legislation is being written on the back of these. FFS.

#RoadSafety #Pseudointelectualism

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140523000828