By on October 9, 2015

There’s a post over at Buzzfeed in which Matt Honan tells us that the future of automobiles is autonomous and how it’s going to be awesome. His conclusion makes me think that he’s not part of the car enthusiast tribe:

Cars are giant, inefficient, planet-and-people-killing death machines.

Self-driving cars — especially if they are operated as fleets and you only use one when you need it, summoning it Uber-style — would mean we could have fewer vehicles per person, less traffic congestion, less pollution, far fewer vehicles produced per year (thus lowering the environmental impact of production), and, best of all, safer streets. The blind, people with epilepsy, quadriplegics, and all manner of others who today have difficulty ferrying themselves around as they go through the mundanities of an average day will be liberated. Eliminating the automobile’s need for a human pilot will be a positive thing for society.

So go f*** a tailpipe if you love cars so much. Your love for cars doesn’t supersede the lives of 1.2 million people who die in automobile accidents every year. It’s not more important than the energy savings we’ll get from not manufacturing 60 million or so vehicles every year that spend most of their time idle. Turned off. Parked.

Perhaps we should use communal ovens and showers too. After all, those appliances in our homes spend most of their time idle. Come to think of it, maybe using words like showers and ovens might give Honan ideas — bad ideas.

Honan apparently has a fan in Vox’s Dylan Matthews (the irony of Matthews using an avatar taken from one of the most car-loving shows on TV, Archer, is surely lost upon him).

dylan_matthews_ban_everything_10-8-15-1While composing the headline above, I almost typed “autonomy enthusiast”, but what Honan and Matthews are advocating is the opposite of autonomy. My guess is that their definition of need in “you only use one when you need it,” is different than yours or mine. I understand that TTAC friend Alex Roy tore Honan a new one at Alex’s TED talk, but it will be a while before video of the lecture is online.

Discuss authoritarian autonomous advocacy amongst yourselves.

Ronnie Schreiber edits Cars In Depth, a realistic perspective on cars & car culture and the original 3D car site. If you found this post worthwhile, you can get a parallax view at Cars In Depth. If the 3D thing freaks you out, don’t worry, all the photo and video players in use at the site have mono options. Thanks for reading – RJS

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

273 Comments on “Buzzfeed’s Autonomous Auto Enthusiast: “So Go F*ck a Tailpipe if You Love Cars So Much”, Vox Echoes: “Ban Human Drivers ASAP”...”


  • avatar
    Blackbeard

    If you like these ideas vote Democratic.

    • 0 avatar
      zerofoo

      And if you value your freedom and liberty – vote Libertarian.

    • 0 avatar
      vagvoba

      This has nothing to do with political preference. They are just idiots.
      I’m a democrat who likes his gun, his car, alcohol, and sugar.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        What you’re really saying is, I’m a Democrat and I don’t know that I’m a soldier in the war on the middle class.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “if you value your freedom and liberty”

          then think for yourself

          and don’t blindly follow

          any political

          or religious doctrine/dogma.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          Which party is conducting a “war on the middle class”: the one that is seeking to cut taxes on the middle class, or the one that has a variety of presidential candidates seeking to cut taxes paid almost exclusively by the top 0.1% and fund those cuts by eliminating deductions primarily used by the middle class?

          • 0 avatar
            PandaBear

            Cutting taxes on everyone and then borrow money to pay for the cut is a war on middle class.

            The top 0.1% have their assets off shore and don’t get taxed.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            You mean the borrowing that is so out of control that our debt is falling as a percentage of GDP? Yeah, that’s really gonna hurt.

          • 0 avatar
            JD23

            https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEGDQ188S

            Debt-to-GDP has been in a narrow range above 100% since 2012. It has fallen a massive 2% from its peak and is projected to begin rising rapidly beginning in 2019. Unsurprisingly, neither party has a plan for addressing the long-term structural deficit.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Total public debt is a misleading number. That includes debt held by the government, which has no economic effect. The more meaningful measure (and the one usually used by economists) is debt held by the public, which has dropped from around 74% to around 72% in the last year.

            Yes, it will rise starting in 2019 under current policy, because we’ll have a bubble of retirees swelling Social Security and Medicare costs. But guess what… 2019 is four years from now, and we have this thing called a Congress that can change policy! It could even do something like, oh, I don’t know, bring revenue back to roughly historical levels (~20%) from the current low levels. That would take care of the problem in its entirety.

          • 0 avatar
            JD23

            “I don’t know, bring revenue back to roughly historical levels (~20%) from the current low levels. ”

            Sorry, federal tax revenue was 17.5% of GDP last year, which is right at the post-WWII average. The post-WWII high is 20%, not the average. Revenues were at post-WWII lows from 2009-2011, but I hope you aren’t suggesting that there should have been massive tax increases during that period.

      • 0 avatar

        I’m a Democrat and I love my car. Favorite possession. Matt Honan and Dylan Matthews sound like wet behind the ears kids. And vox is a nutty publication where they support open borders. Literally. Bernie Sanders told them off–said open borders is a Koch brothers policy meant to reduce wages.

        I would add that while we may get autonomous cars in the US within these kids’ lifetimes, it’s going to take a lot longer for them to get to the developing world, where probably most of the 1.2 million deaths occur.

    • 0 avatar
      Fred

      As a liberal I can sympathize with that guy’s points in general, but some where there must be a peaceful middle ground. In the meantime I’m going for a drive in my Elan.

    • 0 avatar
      boozysmurf

      Yeah, it’s got nothing to do with Liberal/Democrat, just people with a different idea of how they think the world should work.

      I’m the “car gets used 15% of the time” guy. Definitely a liberal (no “democrats” up here in CanadaLand). But I don’t commute by car, I walk (6km/3.5miles?) or bike (9.5km/6miles?) because a] commuting is fun and b] it saves wear’n’tear on my car, gas money, insurance money, parking money. And that’s all money that can be funneled into going fast (ie. parts, tracktime, tools) I’ve not actually started either of my cars since … Damn, five days. Sunday.

      That said, it’s Friday afternoon, and I’m going to go find a Prius to make the turbo go vroooOOOOOM—pssshshsshsshhh next to, while I go buy beer. Thick, dark, black, stout.

      Some people just aren’t into cars. Just like some people aren’t into guns, and some people aren’t into abortions. The problem lies when they want to tell everyone else what THEY can be into, too, which is really the case here: “I don’t see the point in driving myself, so no one should have that option”. it’s a dumb, absolutest point of view. Like blaming the problem on Democrats or Republicans, Liberals or Conservatives.

    • 0 avatar

      NOW YOU KNOW why I’m so mad.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      So you mean vote with the majority of Americans? interesting argument. Completely irrelevant but interesting.

    • 0 avatar
      Leg5Malone

      If you like the politics of 25 year olds vote for Dylan Matthews.

  • avatar

    We may still be a very long way off from fully autonomous cars. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEEE estimates that it may take decades.Even Google seems to realize this. “I don’t think we’re going to see no human drivers anytime soon”, Google co-founder Sergey Brin told reporters very recently. “And I think there’s always going to be pleasure in being able to hit the open road and enjoy that.

    Nonetheless, what Honan is referring to: there are three sorts of ‘automotive spillage’: cars that are used maybe 5%-15% of the time, cars that carry only one person, usually the driver, and that causes cars to get stuck in traffic when there are too many of them clogging up the road during rush hour. The bigger the car (the more mass and width), the bigger the waste of resources in stop-and-go traffic.

    Auto enthusiasts may argue that it is their right to get stuck in traffic for hours, minding their own business. But their family and employers might think differently…

    • 0 avatar

      >>>“I don’t think we’re going to see no human drivers anytime soon”, Google co-founder Sergey Brin told reporters

      Actually, Brin doesn’t speak English very well. He meant he didn’t think we’ll see ANY human drivers soon.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      >>>Auto enthusiasts may argue that it is their right to get stuck in traffic for hours, minding their own business. But their family and employers might think differently…<<<

      I don't think any real auto enthusiast enjoys being stuck in traffic, I'll wager that is the legion of soulless drones who neither like their jobs nor love their families and only stay with both out of some perverse sense of duty. They'd rather waste their lives sitting in traffic rather than suffer at home or on the job and don't have the gumption to level some cold hard steel at their temples and end up in a happier place.

      That's the only reasonable explanation I can arrive at when you have both a person that spends the entire length of an intersection accelerating to speed only to have to stop again and meanders in the left lane doing five miles under the speed limit.

      I think the only time an enthusiast likes to sit idle in traffic is when they are in the staging lanes otherwise being in motion is the rule of the day.

  • avatar
    Detroit-Iron

    I don’t understand the mentality of people who sexualize inanimate objects. Sometimes a car is just a car, it might represent freedom, it might even hold the promise of having sex-with another human, but why would that extend to having sex with the car itself unless the author is mentally ill.

    • 0 avatar
      darkwing

      I took it as projection of the psychoses of the beta male, wannabe authoritarian author.

    • 0 avatar
      ckb

      And I don’t understand who Matt Honan and Dylan Matthews are and likely won’t care after finishing typing this sentence…the one I’m typing right now…PERIOD. (gasp)

      I do understand why TTAC would post an extremist anti car viewpoint…to stir shit up. 116 comments and counting. Great job trolling yourself TTAC, your parent company is surely proud!

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      Buzzfeed has to incite rage and strong opinions from everything they do, lest they fail in their ultra-liberal mission.

      The only thing I like that they produce is YouTube videos about people trying foreign food and alcohol. Those are entertaining.

  • avatar
    doublechili

    At least that writer didn’t play games and try to tell us this will be better for us (enthusiasts). Refreshingly honest.

    The cars are autonomous, not the people.

    But actually they’re not cars, they’re pods.

    The real end game of driverless cars is simply mass transit, albeit decentralized. It’s inevitable. The questions are when it will happen, and how messy will the transition be. But eventually people will not operate vehicles on public roads.

    Buy an Ariel Atom and join the eventual racetrack country clubs.

  • avatar
    thelaine

    The left loves autonomy, as long as it does not apply to people. The left hates cars. The left also hates coal, oil, gasoline, natural gas, and nuclear power.

    Individual prosperity, life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are what the left wishes to destroy and teplace with state control. The exceptions are sex and drugs, which they would like to enjoy without restriction AND without consequence, because someone else pays the bill.

    They believe the state should replace the individual, because the experts (them) will run the state for the good of everyone, and average individuals are stupid and cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. This thinking has led to the impoverishment of one nation after another, most recently Venezuela, and will eventually do the same in the US.

    • 0 avatar
      darkwing

      No autonomy, no exceptions. If you disagree, show a leftist a young, cis-hetero couple who got married at 22 and pregnant immediately thereafter — or a family of 29 year olds with multiple kids — and see how they react.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Uh…this liberal reacts by wishing them happiness.

        • 0 avatar
          Sigivald

          You’re a self-described “liberal”, but are you a Leftist?

          They’re not the same, just as “conservative” and Right[-wing] aren’t.

          Heck, a hundred years ago “liberal” meant what “far-right government-hater” seems to now – someone who thinks not everything is the Government’s business.

          (And I agree with Cranky below that even “Leftist” is a bit broad to tar with the authoritarian brush; I know European men of the left, self-described, who oppose authoritarianism with every fiber of their being.

          In any case, such usages do not lead to useful conversation or discussion.)

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      [citation needed]

    • 0 avatar
      mr.cranky

      Liberal here (and one of the few at TTAC) and I just want to address your point for a minute:

      “The left loves autonomy, as long as it does not apply to people. The left hates cars. The left also hates coal, oil, gasoline, natural gas, and nuclear power.”

      1. I love cars
      2. I dislike coal, oil, gasoline and nuclear power. However, I accept that we must have a medium to transition to when it comes to alternative sources because we can’t just wean ourselves off of fossil fuels.
      3. I dislike politically charged comments like the one I quoted. They do not foster a meaningful dialogue.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Number 3, so much. I don’t care what one’s political orientation is, but comments like thelaine’s show he’s not interested in discussing things rationally, but rather throwing out strawmen for the sake of being right on the Internet.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Drzhivago138 – the irony of those with strong dogma”tized” opinions is that they actually give up some freedom and liberty through the belief that “their way is the best way”.

          Like I said earlier,“if you value your freedom and liberty” then think for yourself and don’t blindly follow any political or religious doctrine/dogma.

          The further irony is these people are just like these so called “autonomous” vehicles. They just follow a preset program.

          No freedom or liberty living as an automaton.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            You are unique, just like everyone else. (I’m using the second-person “you,” not adressing you, Lou_BC, specifically.)

            “There is nothing new under the sun.”

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Drzhivago138 – that would be a tongue twister.. not the you Lou,but the the other you not Lou ;)

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        I don’t even know what I am on the political spectrum anymore. I just know that the GOP will be on the wrong side of pretty much every social issue of our time. If they don’t change quick, they will be doomed. Also, I don’t like any of the presidential candidates, and I think that we need new ones.

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          Maybe it isn’t the doom of the GOP you should be worried about.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            “When we keep the focus on economics, we Republicans do very well, but when the ‘Taliban’ – my name for the religious right – makes it about abortion and who is kissing who, then the Democrats can beat us.”

            -L Brooks Patterson, Oakland County Executive-

            “Ironically, as his party has become further right on social issues, Patterson has gone in the opposite direction, attacking religious extremists and denouncing hate crimes against gays.

            Three years ago, he spent much of his fall campaign in a coma from a serious auto accident. His opponent, Kevin Howley, was a Harvard MBA and public policy expert who had run several high-tech companies. On Election Day Mitt Romney, who was born in Oakland County, lost it badly. Patterson got 57 percent.”

            From an article on L Brooks written by Jack Lessenberry.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          I’m with you, bball…the choice between another damn Clinton and a guy who’s way off to my left does nothing for me.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          bball40dtw – unfortunately my political choices are now filtered by the metric: “which one sounds the least harmful”.

          i gave up a long time ago on hoping to vote for the best of the best.

      • 0 avatar
        boozysmurf

        @Mr. Cranky: Not even close to one of the few. Just quieter. I think.

        And I’m with you. Love what I have, but I see the potential in what the future holds. I’m not, by any means, wanting to hold us in a perpetual state of “now”.

        Electric could be really fun. If the manufacturers remember that people don’t JUST drive to get places.

        3. is exactly it. There’s no attempt at dialogue now: if you disagree, you are the enemy, and that’s no way to have a social or political system that actually works (as we’re seeing).

      • 0 avatar
        matador

        Agreed with #3.

        As for #2, I don’t think you can rid yourself of fossil fuels in the near future. There will be older vehicles, yes, but where it’s not possible is for industrial and agricultural machinery. Sure, Allis-Chalmers worked on a fuel cell tractor ages ago, but it never caught on. Farm tractors have an extremely long lifespan- ours is a 1975 model, and it’s not the oldest in service. There are still plenty of 1960s tractors in use. Modern tractors use diesel engines. Imagine how long it’ll take for them to not be common.

        I think we can come up with something better than internal combustion engines someday, but I don’t think we’re there when it comes time to “wean” ourselves off of fossil fuels.

        Plus, I like my old trucks. They’re paid for, and they get the job done. The entire state pretty much agrees with me on that point.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        Mr. Cranky,

        Lots of lefties love cars. The left hates cars. There is a difference.

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      “The left also hates coal, oil, gasoline, natural gas, and nuclear power.”

      I saw a great t-shirt the other day. “If you don’t support fossil fuels and don’t support nuclear power then you support brownouts.”

    • 0 avatar

      Ah, a Libertarain Screed. Bo-ring.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        I once considered copy-pasting the entire text of Atlas Shrugged into a comment, but I was afraid that not only would it break the site and/or get me banned, but also that too many people wouldn’t realize the joke.

    • 0 avatar
      JCraig

      This lefty loves cars and driving. All of your other points sound like talking points for the far right, unless you only want all of those things for white, christian, straight, middle class or above folks.

      Any rational person should be able to see the benefit of autonomous vehicles. Why not have all cars on autonomous mode during rush hour so one or two idiots can’t screw up the commute for everyone? What’s wrong with autonomous taxis? Why not let the car step in to prevent an accident?

      The right wing knee jerk reaction against any and all progress is getting more and more out of step with mainstream society.

      • 0 avatar
        S2k Chris

        Because we’ve all seen the “because safety” rathole the government falls down all the time. Today’s “Hey, just use it for rush hour, it’s convenient” is tomorrow’s “well, 62% of your driving was manual, so your insurance is going to be very high” is the next day’s “I saw your hands on the wheel sir, please step out of the car, you know manual driving is illegal.” It’s all “for teh children.”

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Oh my goodness, you are so right! Why, all this time, when the government banned lawn darts and DDT in the name of safety, they were just doing it to infringe on our freedoms!

          • 0 avatar
            S2k Chris

            “Oh my goodness, you are so right! Why, all this time, when the government banned lawn darts and DDT in the name of safety, they were just doing it to infringe on our freedoms!”

            They also banned stuff like talking while holding a phone (nevermind that it’s no more or less dangerous than talking hands free, no banned), stake out intersections to ticket drivers fiddling with phones AT STOPLIGHTS, banned driving over certain speeds with essentially zero science behind the limits that were set, banned guns with “scary looking” features that are mostly irrelevant to how dangerous the weapon is (“shoulder thing that goes up”), and on and on and on.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            Because looking at local police departments really indicates the direction of social authority in the state and federal system….Ironically your hatred of local police is odd since they’re far more likely to be right-wing conservatives.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Thanks for missing the point.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            “stake out intersections to ticket drivers fiddling with phones AT STOPLIGHTS”

            More of this enforcement, please. Drivers fiddling with phones at stoplights are the worst safety problem I face on a daily basis. They don’t look up when they start moving, and tend to drive without looking right through the crosswalk I’m trying to legally walk in. It happens multiple times a week in downtown Seattle, and was a multiple-times-a-day thing when I lived in DC.

            I think anyone who objects to this enforcement has never tried to walk around a city center.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        Ahhh, the race, gender, sexual orientation, Christian religion, economic class argument. So familiar by now. But not knee-jerk. Absolutely not knee-jerk. Good thing you said you were a lefty, otherwise no one would have had any idea.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          “Am I so out of touch? …No. it’s the children who are wrong.”

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “knee-jerk” – “a sudden involuntary reflex kick caused by a blow on the tendon just below the knee.”

          This test shows whether or not the central nervous system is functioning properly when exposed to noxious stimuli.

          Therefore in reality a “knee-jerk” response to any extreme viewpoint shows an intact system. It is perfectly normal and self-protective to react to damaging stimuli.

          If that is the case here one needs to look at what one is saying if it triggers an autonomic response.

          Autonomous cars are designed to stop and shut down if they can’t cope or understand their environment. One’s posts tend to indicate that occurs rather frequently on the right side of the road.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            “The right wing knee jerk reaction against any and all progress is getting more and more out of step with mainstream society.”

            Agree with your point Lou. I was referencing the comment above. I’m glad you see it that way.

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        Autonomous vehicles are great.

        Petulant demands that everything else be *banned* because the author doesn’t like them (see article) are NOT great.

        “Progress” that is “ban everything I don’t like because they’re ‘inefficient\'” is NOT progress.

        I could cite a laundry list of “progress” that is now viewed with horror, as a reason that “but it’s progress!” is not an argument, in itself.

    • 0 avatar

      @thelaine

      Another lefty here: I LOVE cars. (Well, it depends on the car.) And I like my internal combustion straight, like my bourbon. I don’t “hate” coal, oil, etc. But I do think the sooner we can greatly reduce fossil fuel consumption, and the sooner we can do without nuclear, the better for humans. And I will point out that the cost of solar and wind have plummeted in the last five years.

      It will be major progress when we develop renewable gasoline substitutes and/or batteries that can be recharged in a few minutes, that can give cars 300-plus mile ranges, at a cost that will enable electric cars that cost as little as current ICE cars.

      It is unfortunate that a lot of H. sapiens feel obliged to be tribal about this stuff.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        I feel compelled to offer the reminder that nuclear power has the lowest fatality rate of any energy source.

        • 0 avatar
          Leg5Malone

          True. The sun has in fact killed every single human being who has ever died. And every animal. And plant. It’s also caused every volcano in history. Ban solar.

          For the record, I support nuclear energy.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        David,

        Lots of lefties love cars. The left hates cars. There is a difference. People are still individuals and can think for themselves. It is not a personal attack, although it is so often taken that way. Your reasonable response is refreshing.

        I am all for all forms of energy, I just don’t want to pay for someone else’s energy fantasy. All forms of energy have an application where they are the most practical. Reasonable environmental and safety regulations need to exist. I am well aware of the limitations of every form of energy and do not favor one over the other. I do not want people to force their favorites on me either, or to make me pay for them.

        Nevertheless, hydrocarbons rule, not for ideological reasons, or because of conspiracies, or because of hidden subsidies, but for practical reasons of abundance (yes, abundance), cost and density. Keep your preferences, but don’t make others subsidize them. I don’t want to subsidize anyone and I don’t want to pay for someone’s dreams.

        This has been tried in earnest in Germany, Spain and the UK, and has been so enormously costly that even some lefties are seeing the truth. Every dollar taken from productive people to subsidize these fantasies is not only an unjust outrage in a moral sense, but is a dollar taken from the creative mercenary people who tend to solve or ameliorate these problems if given a chance.

        I don’t want to buy oil from insane, fanatic Middle East regimes either. We have plenty over here in North America. Nuclear works great too and new designs are safer than ever.

        Got something better? Invent or create something more practical, don’t force “solutions” on others because of wooly dreams for a better future. Yes, hydrocarbons are dirty, so they are not ideal. Nothing is. The world does not work that way.

        To you, my opinions are tribal. However, your opinions are just as strong. I think my views on energy are based on what is practical and yours based mostly on what you wish. The first time I can remember reading the phrase, “the cost of solar and wind have plummeted in the last five years,” is approximately 1976, when Jimmy Carter was pimping it. I have nothing against solar, it is just not energy dense, so it will ALWAYS be a niche source. So will wind, which is also not energy dense and whose cost has been coming down dramatically since the Dutch used them to produce energy to pump water.

        We don’t need to force an expensive transition to other forms of energy. As the cost of one form goes up, other forms become more practical. Hydrocarbons will never “run out,” but will eventually become more expensive. Then we will use more nuclear and other forms of energy. There is no shortage, no reason to panic, and no reason to subsidize.

        • 0 avatar

          It could be argued that the subsidies are justified in balancing economy and environment. As noted we have a lot more oil then we thought which means unless we artificially raise its price or lower it’s alternatives price it will be the dominant form of energy which would be fine. Except it’s not. The environmental costs are large and if you look at it closer environmental costs have real costs in many situations. They are just far enough separated we have a history of overlooking them. For a simple example you can look at something like asthma rates that increase in relation to distance to coal fired power plants. This is something that indirectly effects everyone as it drives up the cost of healthcare. It also likely weighs heavier on taxpayer funded support systems as those living next to coal plants tend to be poorer. Really it’s the same old thing every action has a consequence.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Mopar, we agree that everything has a cost. The environmwntal costs of hydrocarbons are routinely exaggerated by the left to justify a never-ending regime of regulation. Destroying the coal industry is just the beginning. Reasonable regulation is expected, but the left is never satisfied.

            Modern coal plants are reasonably clean. Coal is cheap and abundant and the industry provides lots and lots of jobs for people who would otherwise be poor and dependant on government. Government dependency is what the left wants.

            Subsidies to solar and wind are corrupt boondogles which also hurt the poor and working people the most by raising the cost of electricity and suppressing economic development. Look at California, which has the highest “alternate” energy mandates in the country, the highest electricity rates, and some of the highest gasoline prices. Job creators and the poor get hammered.

            Same is true in other places this is done, like Germany and Spain. It has been tried and is being tried. Check it out and take lessons from it. It hurts the poor the most, just like socialism ultimately does. Failure after failure, but the left never learns. They reason from emotion and leave behind one catastrophy after another. Venezuela anyone?

            The environment must be and is being protected in prosperous nations like the US. Where it is getting hammered is in poorer nations. You need prosperity to afford environmental protection. That means private sector growth and jobs. Private sector is where the money comes from.

            The left is all about making people believe there is a CRISIS!!!! so they can justify more and more and more government size control. There is a cost to that too, a huge one.

            In fact, the environment in the US is pretty clean and safe and protected and environmental protection enjoys wide support across ideological lines. There is no crisis. The left has been promoting the energy CRISIS!!! Since the 1960s, claiming we are RUNNING OUT OF OIL!!! This was always false. We have plenty and we will transition when it becomes too expensive, not when it runs out, which it never will. Same is true of the carbon dioxide WORLD ENDING CRISIS!!! But that’s a whole other topic.

          • 0 avatar
            RideHeight

            “Government dependency is what the left wants.”

            How can it be otherwise? We’ve been turning people into pets since LBJ.

            Maybe 15% of the hourlies I manage are of the opinion that you should show up for pretty much every day you’re scheduled. And they’re the old ones.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            True at my workplace too RideHeight. Can hardly blame them anymore. The message has been received. No consequences. Whatever, bro. I’ll just sue you or go on stress “disability.”

          • 0 avatar

            It should be noted that the northeast has higher electric prices then California. And our market is deregulated in CT (and only require 10% renewable s) and we still have the 2nd highest rates in the lower 48. We even have our own nuke plant in our case deregulation actually seemed to cause a price surge.
            I don’t want to sound like PCH but your constant use of the term left and conspiracies make me think your not interested in policy discussion but instead repeating what you read on breitbart.
            I will say I think we need to balance economics and environmental concerns. But from my view point we have not yet reached the point of diminishing returns. I think the US has made a good show of it so far but it needs to continue and at some point taper off.
            Yes other countries are worse at the environment then us and something needs to be done but right now we can do something about our own issues and we should.
            On the workers thing I’m not sure where you work but I have worked in management at retail/warehousing,and manufacturing I would say i only ever had trouble with less then %5 of workers in those roles. In fact the hourly workers tended to much better then salaried engineers etc. You know who I have trouble with? Subcontractors. 1099 workers have been flakes more then 90% of the times we have brought them in at various jobs it’s amazing how few will actually show up to work after getting their first check.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            When have I proposed a conspiracy mopar? Has Brietbart replaced Fox News as the bogeyman of the left? Your opinions are pretty conventional for your side of the fence. Do you get them from MSNBC?

            Is that the serious rhetoric that advances the debate that you were referring to?

            I have opinions, but I avoid personal attacks unless I am attacked. My viewpoints speak for themselves. If you don’t like them, I don’t blame you. Your views are the prevailing ones. They are the ones taught to our children in school and reinforced in most of the media, except the ones you mock. I am shocked when someone graduates from college and is NOT a leftist. They are indoctrination academies.

            That, in my opinion, is why we are stagnant economically and on the decline as a nation. That is contrary to your opinions, not on you personally. I do not go there, at least not first and I do not care for it.

            The left, however, cannot tell the difference between the political and the personal and insists on personalizing political differences. If you disagree with a leftist, you will be personally attacked. You will be characterized as an evil bigot or a robot without the ability to think for yourself.

            That is how the left functions. They do not want you to speak. They think they are the reasonable center. As soon as you disagree, you get invective or insults. It is as predictable as the sunrise.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            By constantly using the term “the left,” you’re putting everything with which you do not agree into a single strawman group.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Not sure what’s worse: The cliched half-wit with his canned right-wing talking points, or those who go to the trouble of serving as his enabler.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Exhibit A, right on time to prove the point.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Just change your handle to Breitbartbot. It’s not as if you’ve ever had an idea of your own or learned how to research anything.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Commence the psych “last word” contest.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            There’s no contest. You’re no contender for the original thought prize.

            I read a fair amount of right-wing media, and you add absolutely nothing to it. You use the same cliches and half-baked arguments which prove nothing. You are under the impression that a bad point gets better when it is combined with verbosity. You’re just a cheap knockoff of third-rate blogs.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Get it out of your system, little psych. You’ll feel better.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            If I spun to the right as much as you do, I’d have to be treated for vertigo.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            That was actually funny. You should try humor more often.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Your monolithic view of “the left” is pretty comical. Doubt I can keep up with your slapstick politics.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            That was brief. Back to nasty.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Throwing around terms such as “socialist” as if they’re going out of style is what’s nasty. (It’s not very smart, either, as it only proves that you don’t know what a socialist is.)

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Deep, bro.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Left! Left! Left! Now that’s deep.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            If the shoe fits…

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Left! Socialism! Left! Socialism! So insightful.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Likewise

          • 0 avatar

            Obviously this thread went to he11 so,

            To wrap up, constantly saying THE LEFT got you the Breitbart comment.

            And I have to apologize to PCH, you have a habit of “dropping the mic” when a conversation goes south which used to annoy me, after watching this I understand completely.

            Peace I’m out

          • 0 avatar
            RideHeight

            Pch went ad hominem & snitty on thelaine straight out the gate.

            It’s a sad day for all Vulcans.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I find it amusing that someone who is quick to label everyone to the left of Attila the Hun as a leftist/statist/socialist/communist likes to claim with a straight face that he doesn’t engage in personal attacks.

            This sort of internet McCarthyism should be belittled, not coddled. Being nice to the idiots only encourages them, and they should be ridiculed accordingly.

  • avatar
    harshciygar

    I love cars. I love old, loud, smog-bellowing automobiles.

    But I also love the planet, clean air, and the notion that maybe it’s not too late to undo much of the damage we’ve done to the only Earth we have.

    I think the viewpoints above are extremist in the sense that it leaves no wiggle room and places the blame in the wrong place. Cars are the symptom of a disease known as suburban sprawl, and autonomous cars may actually make things *worse* in that regard, rather than better.

    That said, complete autonomy seems inevitable to me.

    We’re all reliant on a corporate overlord to some extent these days, whether it is your Internet provider, Google, or the company that manufactures your blood pressure medicine. I’m just not sure I’m ready to give even *more* power to automakers than they already have, as it is. But eventually…?

    It’s irresponsible of society to force people into driving, especially if they’re neither interested nor particularly good at it. We’ve proven time and again that more highways doesn’t solve traffic congestion, and we’ve given over so much of the planet to roads, parking lots, and highways that are mostly empty 80% of the day, and congested the other 20%.

    In that sense, autonomous cars are a great thing.

    Eventually, manual driving will probably be either outlawed outright, or extremely regulated. I think it’s inevitable, whether it be in a couple of decades or a couple of centuries. Most of us will probably be dead or decrepit by the time it happens, but do any of you really think most people will get around by driving themselves 100 years from now? A century ago, horses and trains were still the main way to get around.

    When’s the last time you rode either, and not merely for funsies?

    Honestly, I don’t have a problem with eventual, total autonomy. Most people suck at driving, but think they’re great at it. Given the option, I’d probably let a car do 90% of the driving for me (I have a 17.5 hour road trip coming up in 3 weeks, how I wish my car drove itself).

    I’m just going to enjoy it while I can, and I suggest you do the same. It was a great run, and we’ve probably got a couple of decades left…but we all know in our heart of hearts where this is heading.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Sensible commentary on an article designed only to enrage? What kind of sick bastard are you?!

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Wow, a reasonable post. Imagine that.

    • 0 avatar
      ctg

      Well said.

      The shift to self driving cars won’t be mandated by the government (which is too gridlocked to agree that the sky is blue). It will be driven by market forces. 90+% of people currently driving don’t enjoy driving at all. So for those people, self-driving cars be a relief.

      Ultimately, I think the comparison to horses is spot on. Some day human-piloted cars will probably be banned from public roads. Not because of a hatred of drivers or freedom, but because people just won’t be able to keep up with how fast computer-driven cars can move and react, how close they can follow (drafting on the highway), etc. And that’s probably a long way off still.

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        But except the traffic will still be a clogged mess of multiple lanes of those stoopid little pods, because they’re likely going to be programmed to never exceed an asinine, underposted value on a roadside sign which doesn’t take their capabilities into account. (Not advocating for 90mph around a school, but 75mph inside the beltways of cities, with strict “keep right except to pass” laws, should suffice.)

        Much like today’s signs and more capable cars! (Though yes, the idiot vying for their Darwin award by texting behind the wheel negates the overall capability factor somewhat.)

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          “Because they’re likely going to be programmed to never exceed an asinine, underposted value on a roadside sign which doesn’t take their capabilities into account.”

          That’s a big assumption.

        • 0 avatar
          Sigivald

          Possibly.

          But they won’t randomly stomp their brakes because they might need to make a turn in two miles, or swerve across three lanes to make a last-minute exit, or forget how merging works.

          Autonomous cars can, well, drive “perfectly” within the limits of the mechanical systems.

          That’ll help a LOT with mitigation.

          (Sure, eventually maybe we end up with clogged traffic because capacity will encourage it to be used … but it’ll be more efficient clogging and with higher capacity.)

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          sgeffe – driving is a social behavior and to drive effectively just like functioning in society you need to understand how you fit in.
          Unfortunately those “stoopid little pods” are easy to program to “fit it” and therefor have predictable behavior. If you can predict behavior 100% of the time then in effect, efficiency increases. Translation – the commute time will decrease.

          If you don’t know what the idiot ahead of you is going to do then you need to account for that uncertainty.

          Human reaction time assuming that you are paying attention is relatively fixed. A signal can only travel so fast through your neurons.

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            Add that the assumption that the average human driver is even paying attention is a BAD assumption. Even if the autopilot were merely average, the fact that they are undistractable is a huge gain.

            Human driven cars won’t be banned, they will just be looked at the way we look at the Amish in their buggies. “Oh, how quaint”.

      • 0 avatar
        matador

        I don’t think they’ll be banned for a long time. You can still drive a horse and carriage down the highway if you choose. I think it’ll look about the same to the people of that time, though- an antiquated, slow means to accomplish something that’s much easier.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      We’ve proven highways bring about economic growth, something that stopped happening when people became brainwashed enough to talk about how they love the planet more than cheap energy and freedom.

      • 0 avatar
        OneAlpha

        Exactly.

        I’ve made the point that the real scandal of the VW mess is that the State is allowed to regulate automotive design features and emissions AT ALL.

        I’m well aware that I’m swimming against a tide of two generations marinated in a public school system that’s taught them, from their earliest days, that the State is right and proper in taking an active role in “saving the planet,” and if freedom should be compromised in that quest for clean air, well, freedom was never that important anyway.

        After all, how many times have we been told that “freedom” is simply a selfish, antisocial excuse to pollute, say “racist, sexist, homophobic” things and endanger our fellow citizens by driving 80 MPH on the highway?

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          All those platitudes…!

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Well, guys, I’ll tell ya what…I’ll take my freedom WITH air I can breathe, and water I can drink. If it costs me a few extra bucks, then so be it.

          Then again, I’m a stupid liberal. What do I know?

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Yup – freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose.

          How dare we loose the right “to polute and say “racist, sexist, homophobic” things and endanger our fellow citizens by driving 80 MPH on the highway.”

          Odd, with freedom comes responsibility. That is the responsibility to enjoy our freedoms in a manner that does not stop another from enjoying their freedom.

          Why is that such an incredibly difficult thing to comprehend??

      • 0 avatar

        We need balance between the two. Unregulated markets tend to get out of control quickly. If we never regulated emissions we would be sitting in a haze worse then Beijing right now. Lets be clear pollution is a problem that needs to be dealt with we just need to be sure we don’t destroy our economy while preventing it.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          True, mopar, but we’ve been regulating emissions for something like 50 years now, and it hasn’t destroyed the economy.

          • 0 avatar

            I agree FreedMike, I would state that our current pace of adoption of emissions standards is just about right. We are moving forward steadily while still leaving enough time for industry to keep up and innovate. I in no way feel we should slow it down at least at this point.

    • 0 avatar

      Thanks for summing up most of my feelings in one very well laid out comment.

      This was for harshciygar post

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I’d be interested in letting a car do the driving for me when I don’t want to do it (long Interstate trips, stuck on I-25 at rush hour, etc) but I’d want the option of controlling the car myself.

      I don’t think autonomous vehicles will ever sell unless that’s an option.

    • 0 avatar
      boozysmurf

      @harshciygar: Testify!

  • avatar
    RideHeight

    Didn’t Honan write several articles for Wired a few years back detailing how his MacBook had been hacked and how he lost precious baby pictures?

    He was granted so many articles on the same theme of I’ve-been-victimized-again that the commentariat pretty much booed him away.

    I see he’s considerably manned-up and is f-wording his way around the blogs now. This is what’s breeding nowadays.

  • avatar
    RS

    One thing is certain, the level of hypocrisy from the types of people who write and approve of these opinions is off the chart.

    Does anyone remember when it was fashionable for liberals to be against big corporations controlling their lives? Neither do they.

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    If there ever were a time I’d support diesel bro-trucks and their coal rolling habits, I wish a parade of them would just circle the block this guy lives on. Oh and a camera to record the inevitable, epic, hissy-fit meltdown.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      I’d rather have a group of T-54/55 MBT owners circle his house/block. There should be significant “emissions” from Soviet 1950s era V12 diesel tanks. Also, tanks are cool.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      Because you’re proving your point by expelling mass amounts of pollution just to watch somebody have a natural and normal reaction to somebody trying to harass them?

      Would it be ok if he went out there and shot their engine blocks with a .50 cal or would that be against your strange code of harassment-ethics?

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        I just like tanks.

        Actually, I think the best thing to do is ignore the guy. Autonomous cars are going to slowly become a way of life regardless of what anyone says.

        I also find it highly unlikely that this guy would have .50 cal.

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          Would be interesting to see how he reacts when he needs the Men In Blue from his Government Overloads to swoop in and save his hide, and they’re, to paraphrase, “thirty minutes away.”

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          It was more a point that while the revenge fantasy feels good, when you open up that line of thought you open yourself to the same retaliation.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I agree. This is why I don’t flip people off while driving (or at all). While flipping the bird may feel great (bask in the glory of my middle finger representing how I feel about you. It’s cathartic.), there is always someone that will take it to the next level. Revenge is always better in fantasy.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

            “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”

          • 0 avatar
            Sigivald

            “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

            Well, more aptly, it makes people *very considerate* of other people’s eyes.

            The point is not revenge, but proportionate punishment.

            Would you prefer execution for costing someone else an eye?

            Or no punishment at all?

            THAT is the point of “an eye for an eye” – proportionality.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            I am well aware of the intention of such policies towards limiting the amount of punishment. But we’re not talking about punishment here, such as would be meted out by a government, parent or other authority. We’re talking about how individuals who have a quarrel with each other should not be reduced to a continual immature display in the name of “getting even.”

            Furthermore, by asking the questions “Would you prefer execution for costing someone else an eye? Or no punishment at all?” you’re committing the fallacy of false dilemma.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Many(dare I say) on the Christian right like quoting “Old Testament” . I find that extremely odd considering the fact that as a “Christian” one believes in Jesus Christ. To believe in “Him” means that one believes that “His” teachings are what are relevant. They supplant all else.
            If one wants to remain locked into the Old Testament then I’m sure that there is a Synagogue somewhere that will accept you. I’m sure that you could also find a sympathetic ear at a Mosque too.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        “natural and normal reaction”

        My point is that this is the person who would have anything BUT that. For reference, search “prius lady” on youtube, and multiply that by 10. And he’s already stated that he’s for ‘gun control’ which I’m sure implies that he’s not packing a .50.

        As an aside, shooting a Barret .50 anti-material rifle is truly awesome, and a bucket list item I highly recommend.

  • avatar
    zerofoo

    People like Dylan Matthews are the enemy to a free people. Mr. Matthews wants what he wants and is willing to use the force of Government to get his way.

    He is no different that those that claim their religion is the one true religion – or those that seek to dictate what you do in the privacy of your own home.

    Make no mistake – this is the tyranny our founders warned us about.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      The sad thing is seeing how this mindset has encroached its way into mainstream thinking in a short period of time, and not just the last seven years, either.

      This is Marxist thinking at best.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Marxist thinking?

        LOL…this is a product that someone wants to market and make money on. But it’s Marxist. Sure it is…as long as you think “marxist” means “a political viewpoint I disagree with.”

        I think you need to do some research on what Marx really stood for. I have – a poli sci minor will do that for you – and I can assure you that a corporation selling a product for a profit would have been the last thing Marx would have approved of.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          I have my doubts that Groucho cared about autonomous cars. Harpo could be another matter.

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          Sorry..I meant Matthews, not the makers of these vehicles.

          But I also meant the turn away from individualism and things which give us freedom, and toward having an all-powerful Overlord which simply feeds on its sheep more and more.

          Apologies if I used the incorrect “-ism.” (The new tinfoil in this hat was rubbing the wrong way a bit!)

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Lane lines and directional traffic rules take away my freedom. If I want to weave erratically on the left-hand side of the road or on the sidewalk, then who are you to stop me?

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      *tips fedora*

  • avatar
    Matt Foley

    Hey, remember when Baruth wrote a column about this very topic and used the word “tyranny,” and all you proggy-progs made fun of him?

    Guess ol’ Jack wasn’t so far off base, now, was he?

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Yes, because writing for a blog = serving in political office.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        And hosting a reality TV show = best candidate for president the Republicans could find.

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          To be fair, it’s not like the Republicans “found” Trump. He foisted himself on them.

          Though the second placer CArson simply horrifies me. A NEUROSURGEON who doesn’t believe in evolution and thinks if only the Jews had guns the holocaust would never have happened? Among much other idiocy he has spewing forth. Seriously, this guy is in second place to run for president???

          Trump at least is only in it for himself. I admire his balls. Not that I would ever vote for the guy.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Hitler liked freeways, therefore freeways are bad.

  • avatar
    rpn453

    Poor guy. Probably weak with poor coordination and spatial awareness so he was never able to understand what it’s like to enjoy things like sports and driving.

    Regardless, you’re giving him far too much attention.

  • avatar
    hubcap

    There’s a book by Wade Beauchamp titled ‘Scream If You Wanna Go Faster’ that’s about the various owners of a 1963 Ford Galaxie. The last story, set in the near future, is about a mechanic and his love of dino-juice powered engines in a world where the common car is an autonomous Prius.

    This article reminded me of that story and for those that enjoy cars, I’d highly recommend the book.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Can’t wait for that TED talk. Only thing worse than autonomous car alarmists are autonomous car zealots. The former at least comes from a place of knowledge and concern; the latter from a place of ignorance and self righteousness.

  • avatar
    Driver8

    -1000 pts for giving buzzfeed traffic.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Somewhat ironically, Buzzfeed did do an article that tallied all the points won on Whose Line Is It Anyway?. To keep the site from getting any more traffic, I’ll just say here that Wayne Brady won with 50,072,587,425.

      EDIT: But then someone in the comments section mentioned that Chip Esten was once awarded “1000 points to the 10th power,” or 1 nonillion points.

  • avatar
    Astigmatism

    Obvious troll is obvious.

    That includes the rando on Buzzfeed that Ronnie found to turn into his Big Government Fascist Communist Bogeyman of the Day. And of course it includes Ronnie for finding said rando and lazily copy-pasting his rant here on TTAC alongside a rant of his own.

    It also, notably, includes Ben Carson, who in the wake of a mass shooting (no, not the one yesterday – one of the ones last week) told us no dead, bullet-strewn child “was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away,” and said that he wanted to mandate guns in kindergarten classrooms and teachers trained in “diversionary tactics.” The differences, of course, are that (i) he’s not actually some rando on Buzzfeed, but a man tied for the lead in current polls of GOP primary voters, and (ii) his supporters don’t appear to realize that he’s a troll.

  • avatar
    S2k Chris

    “Your love for cars doesn’t supersede the lives of 1.2 million people who die in automobile accidents every year.”

    Is he including every third-world backwater craphole in that statistic, or did he just do the old-fashioned overstate it by a factor of 40?

    • 0 avatar
      OneAlpha

      No, he’s talking about the GLOBAL death toll per year. OUT OF SEVEN BILLION.

      • 0 avatar
        doublechili

        Ironically, he’s also probably of the opinion that the world is overpopulated and wouldn’t mind a bit of “culling.”

        • 0 avatar
          OneAlpha

          No doubt, because humans are the problem, of course.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Well, automobiles weren’t produced by monkeys, or bats, or elephants, or tarantulas, or any other species on Earth besides Homo Sapiens, last I checked.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Aren’t we related to monkeys? I can say “kissing cousins” since AIDS supposedly came from them.

            Might as well expand this to every hot button topic before the day is out ;)

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            Ultimately, the world doesn’t have a resource problem, it has a human overpopulation problem. The world would certainly be a better place with fewer humans. The problem is figuring out which ones.

            I kind of like George Carlin’s idea that eventually the Earth will shake us off like a dog with fleas. Just hope it doesn’t happen in the next 50 years or so. After that, not my problem. I’ve done my part by not reproducing.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        Which I believe includes pedestrians run over by cars.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    So, to sum up…

    1) Some troll gets on Buzzfeed and says something stupid. No doubt it’s right by their other big headline of the day, “29 Of The Most Perfect Responses That Ever Happened On “Friends”.

    2) Some guy comments on that on Twitter.

    3) And now it’s on TTAC.

    There’s a good discussion to be had about driverless cars but it doesn’t start with that picking some random Buzzfeed clickbait and making it into a not-so-subtle “liberals are authoritarians” troll piece.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      In this case, the voice of TTAC has analytical skills with the depth of a puddle in the desert. Were you expecting anything better?

      • 0 avatar
        bikegoesbaa

        I really like Ronnie’s old car photos and automotive history articles, but his occasional manufactured troll articles (like this one) are a real detriment to TTAC.

        I don’t know why they exist. He’s obviously competent enough to do better, and the site management here usually has moderately high standards.

        Just click bait?

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          He aspires to be Jonah Goldberg. He hasn’t figured out that Goldberg isn’t any good, either.

          • 0 avatar
            bikegoesbaa

            I just don’t understand why the editors here let these through.

            If I signed up to write TTAC articles *for free* and then turned in stuff like “People sometimes say crazy things on Buzzfeed” or “Somebody bumped me at the auto show” I would not expect those to actually be published.

            Maybe my expectations are too high?

        • 0 avatar
          Astigmatism

          Based on his comments in SubaruGate, my guess is that Ronnie can’t help himself.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Actuall, Pch, I was kinda expecting something better.

  • avatar
    OneAlpha

    This guy is what you call a Coercive Utopian. Allow me to elaborate.

    Coercive Utopian – Someone who thinks he can solve all the world’s nagging little problems like war and poverty and homelessness, and all he needs to do it are two things: The police power of The State and other people’s money.

    This is the guy who thinks YOU shouldn’t be allowed to eat meat or own a gun or drive a car or smoke tobacco or keep the money YOU earn at work or really, to have any pleasure in your life.

    You could also describe him as someone who believes he can make a perfect society, and all that stands in his way is human freedom.

    The freedom to say, “That’s not my problem” or “That’s none of your business” or “That guy just rubs me the wrong way” or “I don’t want to, and you can’t make me.”

    At least he’s being honest about it, but remember – this guy is speaking the real opinions of all those who want to “make the world a better place.”

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Ah…so, not only is it fascist to think that you should have drinkable water and breathable air, EVERYONE who thinks that is a fascist too.

      Well, science has always wondered what happens to the human brain when that human drinks 12 Red Bulls and then wears a tinfoil hat out on a sunny day. And now we have our answer – rampant, comedic paranoia.

      Your contribution to science is appreciated.

      • 0 avatar
        OneAlpha

        Oh, please. There’s a reason we call them Watermelons.

        Marxists couldn’t get any traction threatening normal people with a bloody revolution at the hands of the disenfranchised masses, so they switched gears and began threatening us with an environmental apocalypse. In each case, they wanted the same thing – power.

        It’s always been about power with them, and it always will be. They don’t want clean air or water, they just want to tell us how to live.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          [citation needed]

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          So the decades long, bipartisan initiative to keep the Great Lakes clean is just a Marxist power play?

          • 0 avatar
            sgeffe

            It may be the things we can see, versus the things that we cannot see.

            (There were E-Mail messages from one of the scientists beating the AGW drum, stating that in fact he was falsifying things, but why kill our gravy train?)

            If nothing else, we hit the “law of diminishing returns” with stuff like auto emissions and whatnot.

            To the Great Lakes example: in the 1990s, Lake Erie was so clean that you could see the bottom of your boat’s drive, and walleye down to 10 feet; no algae or the like. Zebra mussels, one of which could filter an ungodly amount of water per day, were responsible. Yet, aside from the need to wear a pair of UGGs when swimming (or to step carefully), treat the water inlets at power plants, etc., with biocides or whatever to kill the larvae (and flush the motors of boats using raw-water cooling to prevent growth of larvae), initiatives were taken to kill them off (don’t remember what it was — likely introduction of a predator species — gobi, maybe). Result: a natural pollution control gone. (Admittedly, the Zebra mussel was introduced to the ecosystem from the outside. If the Asian Carp finds its way into the Great Lakes, the native fish species, i.e. perch and walleye, WILL be in danger, so action will be needed. I believe THAT’S been proven.)

            Now in this space, I’ve stated that having some sort of buffer acreage and cutting phosphates a little bit will help things. It’s this constant, never-ending, save-the-Earth-at-all-costs that gets tiring; bring the “diminishing returns” thing in, after a while, it’s not worth the cost paid for eking out one last little bit of stuff to feel good about, and about which most folk may not give two hoots.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            The problem, sgeffe, is that people think that if pollution’s “under control,” they’ll see no need to deal with it anymore. And there will be no shortage of politicians who are ready to cater that silly idea, so that the polluters – i.e., the ones who line said politicians’ pockets – don’t have to spend as much money on not polluting. “The market” clearly won’t regulate itself on this – it took political action to deal with 40-50 years ago, and that won’t change today.

            I’m sorry, this is one issue that we can’t “throttle back” on. This is what happens:
            http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/aghast-over-beijings-air-pollution-this-was-pittsburgh-not-that-long-ago/267237/

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            The Zebra Mussels have both positive and negative side effects in the lakes. Lake Erie was already in a much better place before Zebra Mussels showed up. Water clarity had already increased tremendously because of the reduction in phosphorus being dumped in the lake. Zebra Mussels have hurt the food chain by replacing more nutritious food sources for fish. They have also contributed to algae blooms in the Saginaw Bay and Lake Erie. The toxic algae kills the alewife, which is the Chinook Salmon’s primary food source (I’m aware that the alewife and Chinook are not native to the Great Lakes either). The lake I have my cottage on also has way more seaweed now that the Zebra Mussels are more prevalent.

            Right now, we are in a pretty good place as far as the health of Great Lakes goes. The most pressing issues besides the toxic algae are invasive species and Canada wanting to store nuclear waste on the shores of Lake Huron.

          • 0 avatar
            sgeffe

            @bball:

            So the Zebra mussels HELPED the algae by clearing things out, allowing more sunlight to reach further down, with the results we see?

            I’m not disputing things — B&B, set me straight on this!

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            According to NOAA, the zebra mussels contribute to larger toxic algae blooms. The zebra mussels tend to eat the green algae, but not the blue-green algae strain. The blooms in Lake Erie, Saginaw Bay, and other places have been the blue-green variety.

            The mussels have also helped some fish and hurt others. They seem to help the shallow water fish (bass and perch numbers are up) but hurt the deep water fish.

            The zebra and quagga mussels can be dealt with. I am more worried about the Asian Carp.

            From MLive:

            “The mussels increased water clarity, but unleashed ecological havoc.

            Each zebra and quagga mussel can filter up to one liter of water per day. Under certain conditions, the quagga mussel population can filter all the water in Lake Michigan in nine to12 days, according to University of Michigan research scientist David Jude.

            As they filter water through their bodies, zebra and quagga mussels consume plankton, tiny organisms that are the foundation of the Great Lakes food chain. That increases water clarity, which allows sunlight to penetrate deeper in the lake.

            Sunlight at greater depths, coupled with mussel waste that acts as fertilizer, is fueling bumper crops of cladophora across the Great Lakes. Wind and waves cause cladophora to rip off submerged rocks and other hard surfaces — including piles of dead quagga mussel shells — and wash onto beaches.”

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          You really obliterated that straw man. Well done.

  • avatar

    There are unproductive ENVIRONMENTALIST LAW and ORDER LIBERALS OUT THERE WHO WANT TO LIMIT ME.

    I REFUSE to go quietly into the good night.

    I will drive WHATEVER I WANT.

    I will drive gas guzzling MEGA-HEMIs that get 5 mpg and I will waste every dime I feel like wasting. If you don’t like eit, then you can go buy a PRius or Nissan LEaf that drives itself until some hacker hacks your electric steering – drives you off a CLIFF and removes your worthless genes from this gene pool. I won’t miss you. I’ll simply turn the channel from the news talking about your demise, to Mortal Kombat X by saying: “X BOX – go to Mortal Kombat X”.

    You don’t even exist as far as I’m concerned.

    President Trump and I will defeat your communist ideologies.

    • 0 avatar

      THank you for being true to form.

    • 0 avatar
      eamiller

      I believe BTSR has become a parody of himself at this point.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      “You don’t even exist as far as I’m concerned.”
      ______________________________________________________

      If “they” don’t exist then why are you so angry?

      • 0 avatar

        Because they do exist where I’m not concerned.

        Like in Syria.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Yep, because ISIS is a bunch of tree hugging liberals.

          Comic relief appreciated, BTSR.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I’m confused as to what he is talking about in regards to Syria.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I think he is too.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            I’m confused too.

            That is why I never could take my Psychiatry rotation seriously………….

            “and why did you think all of those spiders with large penis’s were after you?”

            Yup, lost it after that.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “Meanwhile, the former head of U.S. Defense Intelligence, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, made headlines again when he said during an interview with al Jazeerah [sic] that the Obama administration had willfully supported the creation of Islamic State by supporting the insurgency of Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and Iraq.

            Flynn said that his agency had delivered accurate intelligence Al Qaeda and other Islamist groups were the main driving force of the insurgency in Syria and Iraq, but the administration did not listen.

            When the interviewer asked Flynn if he thought the administration turned a blind eye to the intelligence, he said that it wasn’t a “blind eye” but “a willful decision” to ignore the information.”

            http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-former-head-of-u-s-defense-intelligence-administration-willfully-supported-creation-of-isis/

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      Is it just me or has BTSR become a professional wrestler with Donald Trump as his tag-team partner? Is Bernie Sanders and I going to have to get into a steel cage match to validate political views or what?

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        BTSR has basically been a professional wrestling heel for years now.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          The real question is what is his heel name? Big Truck would be great but I doubt he’s 6’5″ and 350….I’m thinking the Polluter!

          • 0 avatar
            NoGoYo

            Clearly he needs to be “Hellcat” something.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            I’m not sure he’s all that far away from 6’5″ 350#. Watch his videos and you can see he’s a big guy.

          • 0 avatar
            sgeffe

            Hellcat Reliant would be..nahhhh!

            (Can you imagine the torque steer? My God!)

            Although I just remembered that I DID drive a LeBaron GTS Turbo (moderately equipped, without the “Atari dash” and leather) a couple times in college, a car a couple generations down the “K” family tree; could get out of its own way well enough without getting on the boost; handled well enough, though with a rubber-band rack & pinion unit no better than my Dad’s 1986 Century. Unfortunately, I cannot even fathom how one of those Hemis could be shoe-horned into the front of any “K”-derivative without some serious unibody work and custom body work, plus some AWD-system fabrication, etc. And even then, with all that weight up-front, you’d have terminal understeer pulling into an average parking space!

            But it might go OK in a straight line — for one pass down the strip, until under full throttle, the whole assembly disconnects itself, and said Dreadnaught-class engine goes flying out the front of the car and down the rest of the quarter to earn a slip, skidding upright to a stop after stalling from fuel starvation (which thankfully saves the engine from oil starvation as the pan cracks in half at the end, while the bewildered driver can only ask “WTF!”

            It’s a day off for me — off for ANOTHER brew! ;-)

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            I think if you put a Hellcat in a SWB K-car the rear wheels might be in danger of coming off the ground.

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      Funny, I thought it was a MOPAR Wired used for their car-hacking article. Can 707hp outrun security issues?

  • avatar
    danio3834

    So edgy. I’d like to see high taxes on enviro-fascists and Buzzfeed, but we can’t always get what we want.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Notice how there are maybe one or two rational posts about whether autonomous cars are a good thing or not.

    This proves one thing: when you introduce an actual, debatable topic and do it in the context of a silly political screed, you get screeds in return. Imagine that.

    Troll mission completed. Well done, Ronnie.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      I’ve noticed that you have contributed more posts to this story than anyone else. As someone who is angry about it, wouldn’t a better response be to ignore it, or post once saying you think it’s bunk?

    • 0 avatar

      I didn’t realize that expressing opposition to authoritarianism was a silly political screed. I’m genuinely interested in hearing what you think was political about this post.

      To be honest, almost as distressing as their need for control is the sheer antipathy they have to you and me as car enthusiasts.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        “To be honest, almost as distressing as their need for control is the sheer antipathy they have to you and me as car enthusiasts.”
        ______________________________________________________________________

        Ronnie, kindly allow me to fix that sentence for you (emphasis in all caps is mine):

        “To be honest, almost as distressing as their need for control is the sheer antipathy THESE TWO GUYS have to you and me as car enthusiasts.”

        “THESE TWO GUYS” don’t add up to “authoritarianism.” In a country with over 300 million citizens, it takes a LOT more than two morons bloviating over the Internet for us to lose our individual rights.

        And assuming they ARE authoritarian, and assuming they have any kind of relevance at all – a specious assumption, as the first one works for a site that sells clickbait like “19 ways you can totally make your GF do anything you want in bed” or “20 reasons why Harry Potter was a hermaphrodite” – is the autonomous car an “authoritarian” product?

        OK, let’s talk about that.

        If the government were developing these cars, and planned on forcing us to all buy them, then, yes, that’s authoritarianism. But that’s not what’s happening here. It’s private companies who are developing the technology and hoping to sell it to consumers, who may or may not actually want these things (personally, I’d pass). This isn’t authoritarianism – it’s Capitalism 101.

  • avatar
    Xeranar

    Seriously, an ad hitlerum argument over what some nobody said? Next you’ll be going to tumblr to pick on 13 year old Feminists who call boys icky. Don’t be a hack, Ronnie, you can write better than this.

    Though kudos to the B&B for totally coming out and refusing to bite his bait. :D

  • avatar
    dal20402

    I love driving. I love cars. I’ll be sad when driving isn’t routine anymore. And I still support the transition to autonomous cars.

    Why? Because humans are just too bad at doing it themselves.

    We kill each other on the roads at a rate of ten 9/11s every single year. Car crashes are the leading cause of death for healthy people in the US (and are even more common in many countries abroad). They kill more Americans than gun violence, terrorism, plane crashes, and natural disasters combined (incidentally, with gun violence making up the vast majority of that combination). As a healthy American adult you have about a 1 in 5000 chance of *dying* in a car crash (not being in one, not being injured in one) every single year, and almost 1 in 100 (!) over your lifetime. Autonomous vehicles can prevent all but a tiny fraction of those deaths.

    And what will we lose? The physical sensation of driving. Not “freedom”; autonomous cars will eventually take you to every place on public roads that regular cars can, and off public roads you can still drive manually. Just an activity that is kind of fun.

    And we’ll gain other things besides the massive reduction in carnage. When roads are fully autonomous, cars will be able to drive closer together, increasing capacity. They’ll be able to weave through intersections much more quickly, increasing speed. On freeways, they may even be able to drive significantly faster. You’ll be able to do other things during long trips. Elderly and drunk people can get around without being hazards to themselves and others. Disabled people and kids can get around at all.

    Some profane Buzzfeed troll bait doesn’t change any of this.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I think the question isn’t whether autonomous cars are good or not, but whether people will buy them. I doubt the market will ever want fully autonomous cars with no possibility of driver control.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        I think people will absolutely buy them. Too many things are seriously compelling, safety aside:

        1) The possibility to use drive time for other things (this is why “tech buses” are a thing)
        2) The ability to transport kids/elderly parents without a driving-age adult
        3) The ability to get pasted at a bar and drive home
        4) Lower insurance rates
        5) New vehicle layout concepts that will be possible

        • 0 avatar
          Jack Baruth

          To be fair, “tech buses” are a thing because the SF tech companies are importing tens of thousands of H1-Bs who have no concept of driving a car, just to make sure that nobody in the business besides the management ever accidentally joins the middle class.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            There are “tech buses” in Seattle too. I have enough friends in the industry here that I know who rides them. The majority are not H-1Bs. Speaking with a broad brush, the H-1Bs live in the suburbs, where it is cheap, and the tech buses pick up in the city, where it is expensive. The people I know ride because they can work rather than staring out the windshield on their 45-minute-each-way stop-and-go trip to Microsoft.

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            @Jack

            Having ridden a number of the tech company busses through my work as a consultant in and around San Francisco, uh, no. VERY few H1b workers live anywhere the buses go. It’s too expensive, those guys are busily sending every spare cent back to India or wherever, not living it up in the city. This is the US, they all get a box of cracker jacks to get a license, buy a used Corolla, and carpool. It’s the cool kids who live downtown and ride the bus.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        FreedMike – just heap on government rebates and subsidies. Works for hybrids and EV’s ;)

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      As I said above, knowing how hard some of these folks push for other types of control, do you honestly think speed limits will magically disappear?

      These cars will not go one iota over those underposted numbers, will stop for a 3-count at every “STOP” sign (even at zero-dark-thirty in the morning without another car in the same Area Code), and will make the RIDE at all times as boring as a stop-‘n-go COMMUTE in L.A., Gotham or Chi-town.

      “I don’t wanna be a sheep! (Baa, baa-baa, baaaaa!)”

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        You know, even the hated… OMG… *liberals* (shudder) want to get places.

        Speed limits in the city will stay the same or go down because of the dramatic difference in the likelihood of death when a pedestrian is hit at 25 mph vs. 30 mph vs. 40 mph.

        But where there are no pedestrians (freeways) there will be a lot of pressure to raise limits, and once most cars are electric not much reason to resist the pressure.

        As it happens, just today a Google engineer said that they are working on making their robot cars a bit less cautious without compromising safety.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        You know, sgeffe, it’s not the government that’s pushing this. It’s Google and car manufacturers. Their motive? MONEY. In other words, they’re doing exactly what for profit companies are supposed to do. And what’s Buzzfeed’s aim in publishing this story? Amazingly enough, once again, it’s money. More clicks mean more dollars in their company’s bank account.

        So…want to blame something for this? Blame capitalism. I certainly don’t – all these folks are doing is trying to build a better mousetrap and make money off it, which is the whole f**king point of being in business, last I checked. And ultimately consumers, not the government or the “liberals,” will be the ones who determine whether these products succeed or not. My money’s on them not succeeding unless they’re built so that the driver can take control when he wants to, and go “autonomous” when he wants to. I don’t see anyone forcing this technology on us unless we want it.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        I could care less if the journey takes a little longer. I will be asleep, reading a book, or watching a movie. Wake me up when we get there. And I LOVE to drive. Just not for 7hrs with the cruise control set. Yawn.

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      Well, obviously, using roads designed, laid out, built, and maintained by the government, driving vehicles regulated by the government, often requiring the government’s maintenance and safety standards, and fueled by oil protected by the government, while your whole right to use this whole system hinges on your ability to pass a government skills test. That’s freedom. But throw some computers and sensors in the mix, and we might as well put Hitler’s brain in a shark and get that unholy creation elected president.

      I mean, I want the freedom to not get stuck behind some mouth breather doing 5 under in the fast lane. They think they deserve the freedom to drive whatever speed they want, in whatever lane they want. Whose freedom wins?

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        I guess that’s my fear, and I now see @FreedMike’s point better, so apologies are in order: yes, my fear is that we’ll be forced into this stuff.

        I love the Adaptive Cruise in my Accord; I look forward to my next car which likely will have more of this stuff (lane-keeping, autobrake), as long as it doesn’t freak out in normal traffic situations, forcing me to eat the steering wheel or being punted into low-Earth orbit by someone behind me (whether under autonomous control or not). (Hell, with the ACC, I’m a little more tolerant of the left-lane police, but only just, since the car can keep pace.)

        But I still want to be able to be in control when the situation warrants, or if I feel the need to hit the twisties, grab a helmet and autocross at the local parking lot, or whatever. I think THAT’S what those of us with a conservative bent fear, is removal of that choice.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    “Come to think of it, maybe using words like showers and ovens might give Honan ideas — bad ideas”

    Given past behavior, I am not surprised Ronnie wanted to go there, but since doing so kind of cheapens the hell of genocide that millions of people went through, I’m kind of surprised that he DID.

    • 0 avatar

      You think Nazi totalitarianism started with death camps? Unless they’re actually gassing people it’s a Godwin violation to compare or allude?

      The Nazis murdered 1/4 of my extended family. I have had close friends, now deceased, who were Survivors. I somehow have cheapened their suffering, but you haven’t exploited that same suffering to make a personal attack on me. Right.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        Being a descendant of the victimized group rightfully gives you a platform from which to opine on the matter. But that doesn’t mean every reductio ad absurdum argument driven by your personal opinion and politics is relevant or respectful.

        Bottom line, you took the inane blather of an insignificant internet blabbermouth and suggested he really wants an endpoint that resembles Hitler’s genocide of Jewish people. That he was ranting about autonomous cars and not hatred of a religious/cultural/ethnic group seems lost on you. That comes across as a bit flippant and cheap to me, but if you run your comparison by a Holocaust survivor and he/she sees the relevance then I will gladly stand corrected.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Only a neurotic paranoid nutjob would attempt to create a linkage between a random tweet about driverless cars and the Holocaust.

  • avatar
    Chan

    What the [email protected] is wrong with this guy? Autonomous cars are still cars. So is he railing against cars or railing against human drivers?

    What a poorly thought-out rant.

    Can’t I love cars AND be in favour of autonomous cars? As long as I have access to a non-automated environment, be it a road or a track, I would gladly sleep in or surf the web during my commute.

    I love my sports cars and you can tear my gas-guzzling flat plane crank V8 out of my cold, dead hands, but I also like shared and public transportation when it’s well-built and well-operated. Just because I drool over a 458 Speciale doesn’t mean I am not interested in the Google car, a Volvo B9TL double decker, a Bombardier Movia or a 500-series Shinkansen.

  • avatar

    For all of you complaining that this post is trolling our readers or clickbait, for all of you saying, “Oh, that historical stuff Ronnie writes is fine but he should stay away from politics”, how many of you bothered to read and comment on the long form post I did the other day about Larry LaBute, who completely reengineered two vintage cars so he could operate them from his wheelchair? It has four comments. This post is approaching 200 comments.

    https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/10/larry-labutes-wheelchair-accessible-lincoln-zephyr-bentley-mk-vi-restomods/

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Ronnie Schreiber – when it comes to writing and/or news, sensationalism trumps substance every time.

      Mentioning “trump” must of been a Freudian slip but it fits.

    • 0 avatar
      bikegoesbaa

      I read the post about Mr. LaBute and thought it was a very interesting and well-written glimpse into a side of automobiles that I’d previously not considered much.

      I didn’t comment, because I didn’t think I had anything that I could add to it.

      I’m not sure how that is relevant to what’s going on in this post, which seems to be a straightforward attempt to get the comments section buzzing by posting the rantings of a goofball on Buzzfeed as though they are newsworthy or significant.

      It’s not surprising or meaningful that a post seemingly designed to draw lots of low-substance comments did exactly that.

      I am at a loss to explain how/why both the thoughtful and intelligent post about classic cars modded for accessibility and *this* mess came from the same person.

      You are very obviously capable of better than this, which only makes it more surprising and disappointing that you chose to publish it.

      I enjoy thoughtful political discussion, even (especially!) if the viewpoint of the author does not align with my own. I just struggle to view “Person says loony things on Buzzfeed” and “I got shoved at the auto show” as thoughtful political discussion.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      Well, as you have stated on this very website, the quality of the work and the length of the comment thread are not correlated.

      To be frank, the manner in which you express your political opinion on this site is the reason I tend to avoid most of your other writing, including the article you just cited.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      I read that one Ronnie, but I too felt like I had nada to say which would be relevant or add to the article. Nor did I have any question, which is normally what causes me to post.

    • 0 avatar
      DubTee1480

      I also read it but didn’t comment as I felt I had nothing to contribute. I would like to highlight though that despite the low comment count 294 people were compelled to share that awesome story on Facebook with friends and family versus only 11 for this story. That your LaBute story touched so many people on a level that they felt compelled to share it should be heartening. I greatly enjoy those articles along with others that I don’t necessarily comment on by Murilee, Jack, Doug, etc.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    I think he meant to say: So go f*** a tailpipe if you love to obsess about NOx so much

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Dear Mr Honan,

    Hello, and thank’s for the demanding post. You see many of us would like to snap our fingers and receive instant gratification, say seeing your hands and head in a stock with small children throwing rotted fruit at you; but of course we can’t always get what we want can we? The reality is the logistics of such a change as you describe are untenable at best. Thus if fools such as yourself actually have the capacity to think we suggest you devise a small workable proposal and submit it in order to determine if such a thing is feasible. Failing that we suggest and hope you finally succumb to the voices in your head and swallow a shotgun at your earliest convenience.

    Hugs and Kisses
    Society

  • avatar
    TMA1

    For a couple of social-engineering environmentalists, you’d think they’d be reluctant to give up 1.2 million deaths a year. If anything, they should be campaigning against child safety seats, ABS, and airbags.

  • avatar
    Chan

    If I were to take this joker seriously, I would raise him the following dilemma:

    The convenience of autonomous private cars would make people want to take MORE car trips and vastly increase the actual usage of our crumbling roads. The suggestion that increasing capacity has a direct impact on reducing congestion is very weak.

  • avatar
    matador

    I’ll just leave this here:

    “In the year 5555 / Your arms hangin’ limp at your sides / Your legs got nothin’ to do / Some machine’s doin’ that for you”

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Daniel J: The one thing I just don’t understand that hasn’t improved is satellite radio quality. It is...
  • theflyersfan: D’oh! My bad. I remember in other VWs, it was a Fender system. I think the GTI had more speakers...
  • Daniel J: The only one of the “lilith fair” group I ever cared for was Sarah McLachlan. As of late...
  • 28-Cars-Later: Start saving, spring 2024 will probably be your first real opportunity.
  • PrincipalDan: Wife is going to want a Yukon when supply chains recover. I’ve already planted the seed for the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber