UK To Allow Driverless Cars By January 190
rtoz sends this news from the BBC: The UK government has announced that driverless cars will be allowed on public roads starting in January next year. It also invited cities to compete to host one of three trials of the tech, which would start at the same time. In addition, ministers ordered a review of the UK's road regulations to provide appropriate guidelines. ... The debate now is whether to allow cars, like the prototype unveiled by Google in May, to abandon controls including a steering wheel and pedals and rely on the vehicle's computer. Or whether, instead, to allow the machine to drive, but insist a passenger be ready to wrest back control at a moment's notice.
Safety (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Will be hilarious as they iron out the bugs.
Re: (Score:2)
good they have NHS so one some gets hurt (Score:3, Interesting)
good they have NHS so one some gets hurt they not left with big bills while the courts are working out who is at fail and who will pay the bills.
Re: (Score:3)
The same person whose at fault when there is a issue with current cars.
If it was improperly maintained? the owner.
Manufacturer defect? The manufacturer.
Was it a random unforeseeable event? No one.
Really people, this has been solved.
Re: (Score:2)
You appear have no-one driving your grammar and punctuation. Consequently, when I read your post all the words ended up in a massive pile-up at the end. I'm taking you to court for being at fail.
Re: "one some gets hurt" (Score:2)
Re: good they have NHS so one some gets hurt (Score:4, Funny)
In the US, each pedestrian is equipped with full-body external 'airbags' to cushion the blow :P
Driverless cars on public roads... (Score:4, Funny)
We've had that here in the US for decades. We call it street parking.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why this will never work in the UK. All street parking there violates some rule. Google would have to cram a Cray in each vehicle just to find spaces.
Figures it would not be the US (Score:2, Interesting)
Obviously the US will not have this for some time ("Oh my god, somebody might sue!"), it's nice to see at least some countries see the advantage of cars that can drive themselves better than humans can drive them, even if the self-driving cars are not perfect. I would expect initially they would require a licensed driver behind the wheel, at least until the technology has proven itself.
Re:Figures it would not be the US (Score:5, Informative)
Nevada legalized driver less cars a couple of years ago. Google will be running an autonomous taxi service in Vegas: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec... [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Try your luck with our driverless cars!
Re: (Score:2)
Google HQ is in California, so they started there. They've expanded to include Nevada, Michigan and Florida, so far.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually went to a talk last night by someone from the Ohio State University that has been working on autonomous cars for ~20 years.
He talked specifically about licensing in Nevada - they have licenses available now but only for testing purposes: http://www.dmvnv.com/autonomou... [dmvnv.com]
Re:Figures it would not be the US (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Except for the fact that it was the vehicle trials which occurred in the US (california, nevada), trials that demonstrated the safety of these vehicles and which have caused the UK to fully allow them on the roads in Jan 2014, rather than their initial plans for trials to occur by the end of 2013. While the article does not explicitly state this to be the reason for the change, I believe it to be a fair presumption that the 300,000 miles google's cars have driven in Califonia were taken into consideration.
Trials are different than allowing manufacturers to sell driverless cars or allowing the general public to drive them. Even the Nevada law just instructs the DOT to set safety standards for driverless cars, which they have not yet completed. That also doesn't address insurance, which all cars in the US are required to have to drive on public roads. If the insurance companies won't insure the cars because of the litigation-happy Americans, the only way to drive such a car would be to underwrite the insura
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
America is not actually litigation happy. Stop using the news and pundits as is they are accurate.
The insurance is not that big of a deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in Jan 2014
Jan 2015. And I don't see any "fully" about it - these are still to be trials.
Re: (Score:2)
A Progression of Complaints (Score:5, Interesting)
Once they start to roll, there will be a logical progression of complaints, starting with "They're too slow."
Next will be "They're blocking traffic flow/causing traffic jams."
Possibly among the next bunch of complaints:
"They move erratically/unpredictably"
"They wait too long at/stop too soon for traffic lights"
Most of the complaints will revolve around the simple fact that the autonomous cars will be driving 100% according to the rules of the road, and 95+% of the remaining drivers don't. Things like stopping for yellow lights, driving at the actual speed limit, slowing for merging traffic, properly signalling turns and lane-changes, etc.
In the end, the autonomous cars will reduce traffic jams, as they can intelligently travel in clusters, all in communication with each other, and even vary their routes for volume, all while staying moving at a reasonable clip.
The problem will come in when people deliberately try to mess with them, forcing them into emergency maneuvers by cutting them off for exits (for example), or cutting in front and slamming on the breaks (road rage).
Here's hoping they are outfitted with outward-facing cameras for recording such acts of stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
The real benefit will be when some cop that has 'failed to report the broken camera in his car', stops one of these and the camera in the car records him screwing up.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. People are going to freak out about that car in front of them following the rules 100%
Humans play it fast and loose... we either gamble or assume from experience that a cop won't pull us over on this particular stretch of road for going 5MpH over the speed limit but the WILL on that stretch or at that time of day.
But... some cops / towns WILL pull you over for just going 1MpH over the speed limit. It's rare, but it happens.
So the car will have to be built to follow the rules exactly: speed limit,
Re: (Score:2)
It will be fun figuring out how to game the automatic vehicles. I'm sure they're programmed in some situations to pull aside. All you have to do is figure out what the trigger is. It's like playing with the blind spot sensors on the vehicle in front of yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It will be fun figuring out how to game the automatic vehicles. I'm sure they're programmed in some situations to pull aside. All you have to do is figure out what the trigger is. It's like playing with the blind spot sensors on the vehicle in front of yours.
This cars will be driverless, but not passengerless. And they will have lots of cameras taking evidence. So when you collected enough points to lose your license, you'll have to buy a self-driving car yourself.
Re:A Progression of Complaints (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I generally drive like a bat out of hell, and regularly am cussing the idiots who wont get out of my way. But, once I get my autonomous vehicle (I plan to be a very early adopter) I won't care that the car is doing the speed limit, stopping when I would have chanced it, not changing lanes into the "fastest", etc. I'll be reading, sleeping, gaming, etc. In fact, once my commute becomes reliable productive time, I can see myself getting irritated that I get to my destination before I've finished my chapter, level, quest, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I see people flip out when:
- Plane is running late
- Their train hits a snag: trouble on the rails, power issue, etc.
- Their bus hits traffic
- Their ferry is running late
Plane rage is the worst... but people (in the US) keep their cool inside the plane because they don't want to get sky-marshalled or put on a no-fly list. Then again I've never been in a "wait on the runway for 5 hours in the hot summer" situation.
The train rage is the next strongest of the three... though nowhere near as bad as on the road.
Re: (Score:2)
The rage comes from fear they will mist the ride. Once there, no need to rage. Baring unusual circumstance.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate being a passenger because I can't read in cars without feeling sick. All I can do is listen to the radio or audio books. The seats are too uncomfortable to sleep in... But perhaps if someone made a car with seats that folded flat like a bed it would work.
Re: (Score:2)
People will get used to it in a hurry. Too mach gain.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed - every complaint about self-driving cars has been for the migration time when there are both autonomous and human-driven vehicles on the roads.
When you take human drivers out of the equation, and autonomous vehicles are the norm, utilizing things like mesh networks to keep other nearby vehicles informed, all of the complaints suddenly disappear.
Autonomous cars might wait at lights longer, and stop for more yellow lights, but imagine a line of vehicles stopped at a light all accelerating at the exact
Re: (Score:3)
I think the finances would work in favour of shared use of autonomous car networks. Most
Re: (Score:2)
If they can operate at the speed limit, they'll be moving faster than most Prius drivers.
Any complaints will be coming from morons.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A Progression of Complaints (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that unless you're driving a 1950 era automobile, you're already putting your life into the hands of programmers
What do you think happens when you step on the gas pedal? Do you think it's still physically pulling some cable that opens flapper valves, allowing more fuel to flow into a carburetor? Nope. It's all electronic now. You stepping on the gas sends a single to a computer "He's pushing for 25% throttle" which was designed by programmers to actuate your fuel injection at the proper flow rate.
What about that transmission? Unless you drive manual, you're not actually moving gears around with that lever. You're sending a signal to a computer "Put it in drive" which was also designed by a programmer.
Brakes still have a physical connection, for now, but that's only as a backup. The vast majority of your breaking is done digitally, just like the throttle
Re: (Score:3)
What do you think happens when you step on the gas pedal? Do you think it's still physically pulling some cable that opens flapper valves, allowing more fuel to flow into a carburetor?
I haven't worked on anything newer than about 10 years old but every fuel-injected petrol engine I've played with has had a mechanical butterfly valve operated by the pedal. The fancy electronics then measures mass flow rate (which is a function of throttle plate position, air temperature, air filter condition, engine rpm, etc) and injects the right amount of fuel. It's not *that* different from a mechanical carburettor except that carburettors measure volumetric flow and have to be tweaked for summer/winte
Re: (Score:2)
You win this round, you rogue...
But truthfully, it's only getting more and more digital, even without the computers controlling the actual steering (yet). You mentioned a threshold of ~10 years back. That's a lot of time for change. I promise you, you won't find any butterfly valves on a Tesla or Nissan Leaf (and this is half true for Hybrid cars.) I'm also fairly certain that they don't have Manual Transmission options.
It's going to be a slow process, to be sure... but frankly, I already trust a comput
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, will NEVER ride in or own a vehicle that does not have a steering wheel, foot-actuated throttle pedal, foot-actuated brake pedal, foot-actuated clutch pedal (where applicable), gear selector lever, etc. and I know I'm not alone in this
You never ride the subway, then? I don't think trains have steering wheels...
Re: (Score:2)
Someone else mentioned planes. I rarely fly anywhere nor do I anticipate much of a need to do so anytime in the near future. I'm talking about automobiles here.
Does my Toyota Tacoma have a potentiometer connected to the throttle pedal? Yes. Do I not have control of the vehicle? Sure I do,
Re:A Progression of Complaints (Score:4, Interesting)
I, for one, will NEVER ride in or own a vehicle that does not have a steering wheel, foot-actuated throttle pedal, foot-actuated brake pedal, foot-actuated clutch pedal (where applicable), gear selector lever, etc. and I know I'm not alone in this. I don't care HOW foolproof they make them. I will NEVER put my life in the hands of some programmer or team of programmers, not even if they're riding in the car with me.
Have you ever used a train, including a metro train? A good many are electronically controlled (rather than levers etc), and -- especially on metro systems -- many have no more input from a driver than a "ready to proceed" button. Some don't even need the driver to press the button -- usually when there's not a union in the way. Signalling systems have been electronic for ages.
(Yes, cars are a lot more complicated -- but automatic trains have been running since the 1980s.)
Re: (Score:3)
Bad comparison (although I'm pro-driverless car), unless you're thinking of dedicated driver-free lanes that basically turns the supposedly autonomous vehicles into glorified train cars. You might as well say that driverless cars are as safe as elevators and when was the last time an elevator killed someone?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you ever fly? All modern aircraft use fly-by-wire, so you are trusting the programmers. Most modern cars have some kind of drive-by-wire system, especially performance models that often do things like braking force distribution and traction control.
Re: (Score:2)
the FAA does / mandates alot of testing and code review of that code. Also there are like 4-5 cpus that all must come up with the same out put if not the auto pilot shuts down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, above 55 mph or so, the rates of injuries and fatalities in accidents mostly plateaus; that is to say, a wreck at 85 mph is not significantly more dangerous than one at 65.
Nonsense. Stopping distance at 55mph is 350ft, at 85mph it's 530ft.
190ft of the latter is "thinking distance", so at 85mph you'll hit close-ahead obstacles at full speed. (e.g. obstacle 200ft away, 85mph collision at 85mph, ~30mph (guessing) if you were at 55mph).
Re: (Score:2)
The statement you quote could very well be correct. Pretty much everyone will be dead at 65MPH, so at 85 you can't get deader.,
It's like the falling cat question.
How com cats the fall 13 floors seem to live as much as cats that fall out of the 6th floor? Because almost no one takes a dead cat to the vet.
Re:A Progression of Complaints (Score:4, Interesting)
Some vehicles (coaches and buses generally) are speed limited and can't go above 70mph and they don't cause more crashes as far as I know. I reckon that people will soon get used to the conservative behaviour of driverless cars. It's got to be a lot less annoying than some of the hyper-aggressive or distracted drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Driving too slow(eg the speed limit) in the passing lane or left most lane is extremely dangerous.
If you're going to drive slowly, the left lane is just the place to do it. You did notice that the article is about the UK, right?
(And I hope they do follow the rules of the road. That will include not pulling out at 65 mph into the path of a car doing 75 mph.)
Not deploying driverless cars kills people (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Driverless cars have a flawless safety record.
They used to say that about the Concorde.. right up until it didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
This argument contains a number of problems, none of which completely invalidate what you're trying to say:
1. Concorde wasn't discontinued due to passenger safety risks. It was expensive to buy, expensive to fly, and expensive to maintain.
2. If a severe accident caused by an autonomous car happened today, right now, 2 or 3 even, it would still have a substantially better average safety to mile driven record against the average driver. Right now it's beating out good drivers and tying exceptional drivers
Re: (Score:2)
1. Concorde wasn't discontinued due to passenger safety risks.
[citation needed]
Because of the low fleet flight hours, that one accident gave it the worst safety record of that generation of aircraft. It was retired because it would have been too expensive to make it safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Concorde was retired because it was 1960s technology in an era of fly-by-wire 'glass cockpit' designs, and passenger levels fell dramatically after 9/11, making it uneconomical to operate.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, slow people.
Okay. It goes like this:
1. I acknowledged that my points didn't invalidate what they were trying to say
2. They purposefully drew a parallel to a failed technology. This comparison naturally suggests a sub-textual argument that the failure was due to the alluded reason. This wasn't the intended point(see #1) but it was nonetheless an argument by implication. Clarifying this distinction can help to identify a more appropriate parallel.
3. You really need to consider how dedicated you
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/... [newegg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good point, however driverless cars are still being used in very controlled situations, and for the moment require a huge, expensive array of sensors coupled with fragile, powerful and expensive computers. Even if we wanted we could not replace a significant number of cars on the road with driverless ones. The problem is not some kind of legal or administrative red tape, the problem is to make the technology simple enough, robust enough and cheap enough that it comes by default on most new cars lik
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not deploying driverless cars kills people (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia has a nice table of the relevant data [wikipedia.org]. Per capita statistics are a bit misleading as they don't count for different levels of car ownership. Per vehicle statistics are a bit better. The UK has 6.2 fatalities per 100,000 motor vehicles (per year), whereas the USA has 13.6. Generalising this to 'Europe in general' doesn't really work though: Greece, for example, has 13.8 and Portugal has 18.
Even that doesn't tell the whole story though, because people in the UK laugh hysterically when we hear how long people in the USA think a reasonable daily commute is and so cars in the USA are likely to be driven further, which might account for the difference. Taking that into account and using the numbers for fatalities per billion km driven, the UK has 4.3 and the USA 7.6 , so under twice as many. As the grandparent said: not too far behind.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what matters is how many people are killed. The page you linked stated that per 100,000 people 3.5 UK people are killed and 11.6 US people are killed meaning for the average person US is over 3 times more dangerous. That's a long way behind.
Re:Not deploying driverless cars kills people (Score:5, Funny)
UK have nowhere NEAR the rate of deaths caused by traffic accidents because the British know how drive.
Which it really weird considering they're always driving on the wrong side of the road.
Re: (Score:3)
Jezza (Score:3)
New flash: Humans get bored (Score:4, Insightful)
Requiring a human to be ready and able to take control in an emergency is just plain dumb. The human in question will be distracted. They'll be texting or playing Flappy Birds or doing any number of things that a passenger might do during a commute. Even if you require that their hands be on the wheel at all times they'll get bored and daydream and be absolutely useless in an emergency situation.
The only reason you'd want to require human controls would be in case the vehicle gets into a (non-emergency) situation that it can't deal with. Think about a situation that would normally be wrong, like parking on a lawn or driving on the wrong side of the road due to a blockage or something like that. Something that requires a judgement weighing the letter of the law against the practical realities of the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Expecting a driver who's had no interaction with the vehicle for a long period of time to be alert and ready to grab the wheel is a fantasy. Having a "no driver" vehicle from the beginning is the better approach than relying on the fiction of an alert and ready human backup driver.
One article I read about VW's automatic steering mentioned that the driver always have to have their hands on the wheel, indicating their presence and keeping them engaged. That seems a better idea than a system that w
Re: (Score:2)
But it works so well for aircraft. Look at AF447, for example.
Oh, hang on, they couldn't figure out what was wrong and flew the plane into the sea.
You're right, though: if a car requires a human to be there to take over at any moment, it's hardly 'driverless'. It just has a cruise control that can steer as well as control the speed.
Re: (Score:2)
" after which the crew reacted incorrectly and ultimately led the aircraft to an aerodynamic stall from which they did not recover.["
It was the crew.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at how many people drive into the ocean or off an offramp into a pit when their GPS says to do so.
Now multiply it by 65 mph fiery balls of doom.
Throw in a few bad weather conditions - floods (drowning), bridge failures (plummet to death), three cars all aiming for you at the same time - and you've got lifetime employment for every English Barrister.
New flash: This is about liability, not safety (Score:2)
The human at the wheel is there to take the blame in case something goes wrong. The requirement of having a human at the wheel will also soothe the fears of passengers of both autonomous* and manually driven automobiles, a measure that should help the adaptation of autonomous vehicles and thus save lives.
* Google, putting the "auto" into "automobile" since 2005.
UK vs US roads (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We had a relative from Europe complain about our lack of signage. He lives in Austria but he travels all over.
In any case, he was under the impression that our highways and roads would have way way more signs stating how to get to the various cities. Like that exit 26 would help you get to towns W / X / Y/ Z. Or that every-other intersection in town would say would list 6 nearby towns and distance/direction.
We tried to tell him that at least in our state, the most you would see is the city that a freeway
Re: (Score:2)
Did you tell him you were surprised Australians need so much hand holding to get around? :)
As we stop practising driving... (Score:2)
Have they solved liability? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or is this not an issue in the UK?
Because, if it's a driverless car, I'm not taking any control or responsibility for the vehicle other than telling it my destination.
If the car can suddenly say "Oh, crap, you take over I don't know what to do" then it defeats the purpose.
If you're going to have truly driverless cars, then you need to determine who takes liability if it runs over a person. Because I'm going to be sleeping in the back seat or reading a book.
Somehow, I doubt the companies making these cars have stepped up and said they're so confident in their technology that they'll take responsibility. And someone who has disengaged themselves from the act of driving (like reading a book) can't immediately switch to being in control of the vehicle. If I have to keep tabs on it and be responsible at a moments notice, then what is the benefit at all?
Every time this comes up, it just seems like nobody has actually addressed this yet.
You want a driverless car? Make sure I can crawl into the backseat after a night at the pub and not have to worry about it. Until then, this is really advanced cruise control, but you still need to be aware the whole time.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of the many reasons why I won't be an adopter, or at least an early adopter.
If I have to babysit the car second-to-second, then there's little point in having the car.
And I won't trust the car to not malfunction and kill me or someone else, so chances are I will be monitoring it. Maybe the car companies / Google / whoever will say "trust me, you can sleep in the back seat" but I'll have a hard time accepting that for at least another 15 years.
And lastly... I trust myself as a driver (never had
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they've 'solved' it. Basically when you hit the start button you take liability.
Re: (Score:2)
Once we're stepping out of the realm of advanced cruise control and into active driving, it will clash even if they don't want to take responsibility. "I didn't expect my car to make the turn and fail to yield, you can't expect me to undo every mistake" "I saw it coming and could brake down, but my car didn't realize and speeded up and caused the accident" "I tried to hit the ditch and avoid those school kids but my car refused to go off the road, running them over."
And once you've seen the computer do a ma
Re: (Score:2)
IF it's due to improper maintenance? then it's your fault.
Manufacture defect? Manufacturers fault.
This is no different then if a hand brake fails and a car careened down and his some one.
Re: (Score:2)
The owner will need insurance, but it will be much lower for self driving cars without any manual controls. Even self driving cars with a manual mode will be cheaper, on the assumption that people will drive on auto much of the time.
Re: (Score:3)
The owner will need insurance, but it will be much lower for self driving cars without any manual controls. Even self driving cars with a manual mode will be cheaper, on the assumption that people will drive on auto much of the time.
In the UK, you'd have to consider what a driver with a normal car would be. If you just got your driving license, the cost of insurance is incredibly high. On the other hand, a self driving car with the most inexperienced and reckless driver as a passenger will be just as safe as a self driving car with an experienced and careful driver as passenger. So for young people, the insurance savings will be enormous.
Better than zombie drivers (Score:2)
Even if the system requires babysitting, it will probably improve the performance of impaired drivers. Think sleepy, drunk, or old people with poor attention, perception, and/or reaction time, narcoleptics, diabetics who got careless about blood sugar, "indestructible" teenage drivers, Mr I-Can't-Leave-My-Cellphone-For-Five-Minutes, parents with cranky kids, Mrs I-Can-Eat-Drink-And-Put-On-Makeup-Whlie-Driving, Mr I-Talk-With-My-Hands-And-Always-Make-Eye-Contact, folks who like to gawk at accidents/scenery/g
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, that sounds great. It's a nice simplistic response, all neatly tied up in a bow.
But, until there is case law (or laws explicitly passed) to address this, the reality is ... you have no basis on which to make that statement.
The law is much more complex than what we here on Slashdot like to reduce it to. And until someone has passe
Re: (Score:2)
"If the accident was caused by lack of maintenance, then its the owners fault. Otherwise its the manufactures fault."
Are owner's responsible for every aspect of maintence now? If I have a flat on a bald tire and someone gets hit, am I responsible now? If I take it to a mechanic and they sigh off on it, are they responsible?
What if my driverless car runs over a nail? Who's fault is it then?
Re: (Score:2)
"Are owner's responsible for every aspect of maintence now? "
Yes, and they have been for almost the entire history of the automobile.
" If I have a flat on a bald tire and someone gets hit, am I responsible now"
Yes.
"If I take it to a mechanic and they sigh off on it, are they responsible?"
If it is reasonable for you to believe them? then they will be a fault.
"
What if my driverless car runs over a nail? "
The the car will detect it's losing pressure, and pull over.
" Who's fault is it then?"
Then it's just an ac
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same deal if the brakes failed.
Driverless cars are truly revolutionary. (Score:2)
.
Will we need licenses... (Score:2)
to not operate a vehicle?
We also would have accepted:
"So that's why I've seen so many student driver cars on the road with nobody in the driver seat."
Two wheel concern (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not the speciecal, got over ypur self.
You are a loud moving blob, they'll see you.
Who's responsible? (Score:2)
Who's responsible in case of accident? The car owner or the software developer?
Seriously! (Score:2)
I want some of the weed they're smoking. I don't think the tech is ready yet.
While they're at it... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since when government needs to allow me something?
Am I a slave that has no rights, that I must wait for government to grant me them?
I think it works the other way around: they can disallow something if it is that important for the society to do so. And what is not banned, is allowed by default.
Fu*k today's governments and stupid pleb people.
Probably a troll, but I'll bite.
Here in the states, driving isn't a right... it's a privilege. I imagine this phrase is popular in the UK as well.
If you want to drive then you have to follow their rules and demands... else get fined or imprisoned for breaking the rules and risking the safety of others.
This means being properly licensed, having a car that has been inspected and approved for use on the roads, and following they various rules and regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Nitpicking, but this:
driving isn't a right... it's a privilege.
... is technically incorrect, though in general practice it sure does seem that way.
The "privilege" is that of driving on public roads. Just about anyone can legally drive just about anything on their own land (ex. young kids operating farm machinery).
The AC was almost right, except that we (at least in the US) already put laws in place banning various driving situations, like driving in public without a license, or without insurance, or with an unregistered car, etc etc (most of which
Re: (Score:2)
Back to the drawing board.
Re: (Score:2)
damn, i also wonder if they used the metric system during the development...
Re: (Score:2)