Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
#54546 10/20/15 01:34 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
the medical industry in the US claims apx 98,000 lives per year vs the gun industries apx 11,000 deaths by homicide

500 deaths by accidental shootings per year.

but you never do hear a word about the preventable deaths caused by the medical industry only the gun industry.

lets point to the 500 accidental shooting rate for a comparison because the 98,000 medical industry rate is proposed to have been accidental ...

this brings into view that you are 396 times more likely to
to be killed by some medical worker or professional than you
are to be killed by a gun owners gun.

apx 100 million people in the US are gun owners.

apx 11 million people in the US work in the medical industry.

focusing only on the odds of becoming a statistic in a accidental death in the US when comparing the gun industry
to the medical industry.

guns -----------> 200,000 to 1

medical --------> 112 to 1

so its much safer to be in the close proximity of a gun owner with his loaded gun than to be in the close proximity of a medical worker with his/her loaded education whilst he/she is working.

so its 1,785 times safer to be in the close proximity of a gun owner and his loaded gun than it is to be in the close proximity of a educated medical worker.








3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Perhaps you should have the NRA point the gun control lobbyists towards Obamacare, as a government assisted genocide program, based on the statistics of who is more dangerous to the public. Gun manufacturers and their clients vs. the medical industry.
Maybe they (ya know they who control everything) allow both to exist simply to thin the herd.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
That might help if the NRA only had to focus on convincing
intelligent minds which industry is more harmful to the public
but were talking about politicians here , and they only concern themselves on what they are allowed to concern themselves with.

and at this time they must only be allowed to think about gun control and the dangers of not having gun control , that's really obvious with these statistics and the nothing being said about them.

perhaps the medical industry is like you suggest , a control method used for population control , and they fear that people who think might some day realize whats goin on and they might have loaded guns when they do find out.

would you want to work in the slaughter house when cows gain the ability to own and operate firearms?


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
the medical industry in the US claims apx 98,000 lives per year vs the gun industries apx 11,000 deaths by homicide

Can you provide a credible reference to that 98,000 lives per year lost? If you can I will go ahead and see if I can figure out how to state my doubts about the comparison you are making.

I am not necessarily for gun control. I really don't have a solid position on it.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: paul


perhaps the medical industry is like you suggest , a control method used for population control , and they fear that people who think might some day realize whats goin on and they might have loaded guns when they do find out.

would you want to work in the slaughter house when cows gain the ability to own and operate firearms?

Not exactly suggesting there is purposeful intent, but rather a lack of responsibility or accountability, being that there are instruments of deniability when it comes to death within the medical community. Such as waivers and or forms of indemnity that distance a patient from those that place themselves within the system for the care of the public.

The media is suggesting there is legislative action taking place to make any gun related death accountable to any person or entity related to a gun. That would be the manufacturer, the sales person or company that sold the gun, the person firing the gun and even the ammunition company which manufactured the bullet that happened to be fired by the person who used the gun to kill.

Imagine if the medical industry was put under the same scrutiny. Yet they're not. That industry becomes less and less involved with anything related to industry accidents or malpractice as the laws turn the attention towards the fragility of the patient and whatever universal forces may be responsible (as long as its not the institution or its constituents).

I lived with a girl who was a nurse at a hospital in Florida. One of her colleagues (an administrative nurse) checked in patients prior to surgery, making sure that all their information prior to their time in the hospital was available to reference by the doctors and nurses attending the patient. Checking blood type, allergies to medications, vital statistics, family history etc. etc. This nurse decided to skip the formal procedures and simply duplicated the form of a previous patient and applied it to an incoming patient because she didn't want to be bothered with the duty.
IF the media was to exaggerate the story as being typical to all medical facilities the way the exaggerate gun facts imagine what that would do to the faith people have in the medical system (little as that already is).

There are gaps in every system. Villains in every corner of every side that presents itself.

What seems to be important is not the truth, but rather whatever grabs the attention and ire of the public.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
this is the page I found the 98,000 on but the page also
has estimates between 210,000 and 440,000 per year.

so I used the low number of 98,000 in my post.

http://www.propublica.org/article/how-many-die-from-medical-mistakes-in-us-hospitals

heres a 195,000 a year estimate from a medical news site

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php

if the 440,000 is a more correct number then ...

focusing only on the odds of becoming a statistic in a accidental death in the US when comparing the gun industry
to the medical industry.

guns -----------> 200,000 to 1

medical --------> 25 to 1




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Thanks, that was just what I needed. Now let's look at exactly what that means.

Originally Posted By: ProPublica
By combining the findings and extrapolating across 34 million hospitalizations in 2007, James concluded that preventable errors contribute to the deaths of 210,000 hospital patients annually.

I did a quick calculation on these numbers. 210,00 patients with errors that contributed to their deaths out of 34 million admissions comes to 0.6%. Do you have a link that tells us how many people there are who might be killed by guns? We need some numbers for that to make a legitimate comparison. Actually I'm not sure just what numbers would make a good comparison in this case. And we need to keep in mind that health care is a much more complex field than shooting.

Doctors are working on an extremely complex system that can malfunction in an enormous number of ways. Guns are really quite simple systems that have only a few failure modes.

Basically I'm saying that I don't find your comparison very compelling.

As I said above I am somewhat neutral in regard to gun ownership.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
using the 34,000,000 admissions to a hospital would be like
counting everyone who walks by someone wearing a gun or driving by someone's house that has a gun in it or someone's car that has a gun in it etc.

lets just stick with the 98,000 and the 500 accidental deaths
unless you want me to include the thousands of times each year that everyone comes in close proximity or deadly range of a firearm because a comparison to the 34,000,000 hospital admissions would be met with a number in the hundreds of billions of times that people come in deadly range of a firearm per year.

here's one that says 600 from accidental death by firearms.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

you can use the 600 vs the 500 if you like , it really wont make much of a difference.







3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Well, having thought about that a little more I think that the biggest problem with what you are saying is that it is really comparing apples to oranges. It isn't really a good comparison.

As I said I am not really in either camp on this one. The problem is that both sides on the gun debate throw all kinds of information around. But on both sides the information is biased. There may be some unbiased studies on the subject of gun control, but they are lost in the huge number that are biased one way or the other.

In cases like this, where there are 2 strongly opposed sides I generally figure that the answer is some place in the middle. There probably should be some reasonable level of gun control. The problem being defining reasonable when the 2 sides are so very far apart. And of course just figuring out what would actually work depends on getting some good unbiased studies, which are really hard to come by.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I don't really see a problem with what I'm saying , because
what I'm saying is that there is a exponentially larger number
of accidental deaths that are a result of highly trained medical professionals / personnel each year as they perform their duties required by their jobs than there are accidental deaths that are a result of people who have never been trained or have little training in firearms.

the number of accidental deaths from firearms has decreased in the last decade by apx 28%

http://sssfonline.org/nssf-report-unintentional-firearms-fatalities-historic-low/

while the number of accidental deaths in the medical industry is experiencing tremendous growth in the last decade.

there's also the non deaths we should be concerned with.
10,000 each day from medical malpractice.

Quote:
It's not just the 1,000 deaths per day that should be huge cause for alarm, noted Joanne Disch, RN, clinical professor at the University of Minnesota School of Nursing, who also spoke before Congress. There's also the 10,000 serious complications cases resulting from medical errors that occur each day.



http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/deaths-by-medical-mistakes-hit-records

of course we can simply stick our heads in the sand and pretend that we will be well taken care of when we need medical attention or we can start charging those involved with these accidental deaths with the manslaughter or the intentional murder of these trusting individuals.

ie...

if you were to run a doctor over with your car by mistake
or accident which resulted in his death ... you would most likely be charged with manslaughter.


etc ... etc ... etc ...

so , the next time you see a news article or see on the TV
where someone has been accidentally killed by a firearm you
should question the intent of those involved with the reporting of the event and remember the est 1,000 killed each day and the est 10,000 maimed each day by the medical industry
and you should wonder and question why is it that you hardly ever see a news article or TV news show reporting these deaths
caused by the medical industry.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
If you are going on about that you don't seem to be counting the deaths where cars are involved. So I still see it at apples and oranges.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
This is why the gun debate will never go anywhere when it is placed next to something else in comparison, or why the issue of malpractice and or shady politics within medicine and its industry cannot be discussed without losing track or purpose. Someone decides to take the topic away from the discussion of statistics as it applies to one thing, and then dilute it with some other topic, or reference to a statistic that derails the issue into isolated components.

Used to be you could go to a general practitioner and call that person your doctor. Now every body part is covered by a specialist. If it was your toe that needed attention before and now its your finger, you can't go to the same doctor.
When discussing statistics in reference to an idea, someone will want to create an opposing statistic based on a different point of view, religion, or science.

Politicians are great at creating smoke screens to take the attention elsewhere, and so are doctors (and their lawyers). Seems anyone can split the focus into two different rivers if one wants to. wink


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
apples and oranges.
they taste different , they look different.
but they both grow on trees and they are both fruits.
their seeds are contained in separated compartments
inside the fruit.

there's really not much difference between
an apple and an orange.

a comparison between a potato and an orange
would be a more negative comment to make.

apx 50,000 war deaths (6,800 us servicemen) and
(43,000 coalition partners)
died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
between the years 2001 - 2011.
that's a time span of 10 years or a decade.

meanwhile in the last decade , let me get my calculator
out ... and using the low est of 98,000 accidental medical industry deaths per year 980,000 us citizens have died from proximity to the medical industry.

its actually much safer to have spent time in a war zone
as a combatant than to have spent time in close proximity to
the medical industry.

in 2011 the number of servicemen that had been deployed overseas into the war zones was apx 2 million.

that's 10 years into the wars.

these people stayed in the war zones for apx 1 year.

2 million people x (365 days) = 730 million days exposure to war (where people are actually trying to kill you)

that's 730 million days in the war zones.

that equates to 73 million days per year.

people don't normally stay in close proximity of a medical
worker for more than a week in the hospitals because their
medicare money runs out , so they get discharged and readmitted a few days later when more medicare money is available to exploit.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hospital.htm

using 35.1 million hospital admissions per year.
with an average length per admission of 4.8 days.

35.1 million x 4.8 days = 168,480,000 days

168,480,000 days per year... exposure to the medical industry.

we now have est explosure times

73 million days vs 168 million days
over a 1 year time span...

168 / 73 = 2.3
so the exposure time to the war zone is apx 1/2 that
of the exposure time to the medical industry.

50,000 deaths total for the 10 year time span
equates to 5,000 deaths per year.

980,000 deaths total for the 10 year time span
equates to 98,000 deaths per year.

98,000 / 5000 = 19.6

its almost twenty times as dangerous to be admitted into a hospital than it is to go to war where people are actually trying to kill you...



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
It is also more dangerous to take a shower than it is to go to war. I have read a number of times that a person is more likely to be killed by an accident in the home than by any other event.

If there is a problem in the medical field that is one problem.
If there is a problem with cars that is a different problem.
If there is a problem with showers that is a different problem.
If there is a problem with guns that is still a different problem.

Trying to base decisions about one problem on a totally different problem is not a realistic way to address any of them.

So we come back to my statement. I am neutral about gun control because nobody has a clear case in either direction. And I don't expect either side to be willing to compromise their biases just to figure out what the correct solution is.

Bill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
you are right about the many problems , my issue is that
the government doesn't seem to be concerned with or even discussing any steps towards the control of car accidents , shower accidents , or medical accidents ...

well , they have implemented regulations that cap the amounts
of monetary compensation that can be awarded to those who are
able to win a lawsuit against the medical industry.

I think they are also thinking about or are already limiting the amounts that can be compensated to people involved in car accidents that are the result of faulty automobile parts.

which will most likely cause more deaths in each industry.

but they want to harp on gun control on a constant basis and
its almost as if there is some outside pressure from outside our country being placed on our government officials to do so , they seem to be developing some unrealistic concerns or phobias about gun control as if the world would be a better place if gun control were in place in the us. they certainly do dwell on the subject and they go well beyond their scope to try to implement gun control.

they even seem to want to undermine the tried and true logic
that is found in the us constitution in order to please these outside pressures.

in my opinion (any) us politician that desires to obtain gun control in the us should not be allowed to serve in any aspect that is connected to the governing of the people of the us simply because the right to bear arms was intended as a control method that the free peoples of the us can and will employ if our government oversteps its bounds and scopes that are found in the us constitution.

no bias here ...
so I too am neutral where political parties are concerned when gun control is in question.

presidents , vice presidents , prior presidents and prior vice presidents and all political candidates are all protected
24/7 52 by the us secret service agents who just happen to carry firearms for some reason.

is that reason ... protection?

from the citizens of the us?

if the government want's the citizens to give up our protection from them then they should first give up their protection from the citizens as a good faith measure and let
us observe just how long that gun control would last.

I'm going to guess that at least a billion dollars is
spent on weapons , armor , bullets , vehicles , training , fuel , food , shelter, and shoe polish etc ... etc ... etc ... annually.

so it might be perceived that their and their families protection is a real concern to the politicians.


is it like , don't do as I do , just do as I say.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
you are right about the many problems , my issue is that
the government doesn't seem to be concerned with or even discussing any steps towards the control of car accidents , shower accidents , or medical accidents ...

The government has mandated air bags, seat belts, and now automatic braking in cars. The automatic braking will require cars to have systems that will engage the brakes if the closing speed to the car ahead is too great. Many states, including Oklahoma at last, outlaw texting and driving. These are all attempts to reduce the problems associated with car accidents.

Many building codes require such things as grab bars in showers. So the government is taking steps in these areas.

As far as medical accidents are concerned they keep working on ways to reduce the number of them. The problem there is that the medical field works with the most complex system there is. That makes it hard to figure out how to prevent accidents.

As far as guns are concerned the complexity of gun safety is provided by the fact that people are the final part of the question of gun safety. And people are even more complex than medicine.

So if you really want a resolution go out and support independent research that will actually lead to real facts in regard to guns. Don't just keep making the same old arguments. The problem there being that, just as you say you are neutral, but have presented the same basic arguments that gun rights people have been presenting. So I assume that you are in reality in favor of guns.

My intention in these replies is not to take a position for gun control. I don't know what a reasonable position would be. I just wanted to point out that if you want to argue for gun rights you need to use arguments that actually apply to the question of guns. So that most of the arguments that you have made don't really apply to guns. They are separate subjects and should be addressed separately.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:

The government has mandated air bags, seat belts, and now automatic braking in cars. The automatic braking will require cars to have systems that will engage the brakes if the closing speed to the car ahead is too great. Many states, including Oklahoma at last, outlaw texting and driving. These are all attempts to reduce the problems associated with car accidents.


yeah , that auto braking might work with only one car on the highway , but if you have ever driven in a large city
you know that people drive bumper to bumper and at pretty fast speeds , I can recall many a day driving home from work
in atlanta 2 or 3 feet behind the car in front of me at 70 mph , and when there was enought space in front of my car there
would always be someone darting in front of my car in order to change lanes to make it to his exit ramp ... I would simply love
to watch a highway full of these auto braking cars mixed in with non auto barking cars but wouldn't want to be in any of those cars
on the highway.

plus I think the people with the non auto braking cars would be toying with the auto braking cars , you know how people are.

what happens when someone does change lanes ? does every car brake behind the the car that brakes because a car changed lanes in front of him?
it seems that this would require massive brake usage and massive brake usage will ultimately lead to premature brake failure that will lead to many more car accidents and deaths.

reducing problems that cause accidents is one thing , but are they reducing the number of cars on the highway by banning them from use the way
that they want to ban guns from use in the us.

do they limit the speeds that cars can travel on the highway so that there is no need for people to control the speed of their car?
there would be an awesome reduction in auto accidents if the car cannot travel faster than the speed limits on the highways and roads
but no they dont do that , they could to save lives , but they dont ... but they do control how many bullets a firearm can shoot with
a single pull of the trigger.
and they do control the number of rounds that a firearms magazine can hold.

Quote:

Many building codes require such things as grab bars in showers. So the government is taking steps in these areas.


so their not trying to ban taking showers , they are trying to fix the problems associated with showers that
lead to deaths in showers.

Quote:

As far as medical accidents are concerned they keep working on ways to reduce the number of them. The problem there is that the medical field works with the most complex system there is. That makes it hard to figure out how to prevent accidents.


As far as the medical industry is concerned the complexity of medical safety is provided by the fact that people are the final part of the question of
medical safety. And people are even more complex than medicine.

Quote:

As far as guns are concerned the complexity of gun safety is provided by the fact that people are the final part of the question of gun safety. And people are even more complex than medicine.


As far as guns are concerned the complexity of gun safety is provided by the fact that people are the final part of the question of gun safety. And people are even more complex than medicine.

if you drive a car you must learn how to safely drive before you can legally get a drivers liscense.
if you work in the medical field you must learn how to perform your duties before you are allowed to work with medicine.

if you want to own and shoot a firearm you must have the money to buy it.

I think that gun safety training requirements would be the path to less gun accidents.
besides the criminals in the us will get the guns they want , even if they have to kill the cops in order to get them.
and the criminals will begin to own the cities completely including the police in the cities.

I dont really want to see that happen but I know that thats what would happen if the government ever succedes in
removing our right to bear arms.

the us constitution does not say that you must have gun safety training to own and operate a firearm

but it clearly states that we do have the right to bear arms to throw off a tyrantical government.

Quote:

the most complex system there is


that system must be the human mind.


cars do not kill.
showers do not kill.
medical equipment does not kill.
guns do not kill.

lack of training or neglect of trained skills kills.









3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Ok, I am going to take this in pieces. Right now I am going to talk about just your discussion of auto braking cars. Any discussion of guns I will defer to a separate post. I sure wish SAGG still had the original threaded approach. Then discussions could wander off in several directions without losing track of the relevant posts.

Originally Posted By: Paul
yeah , that auto braking might work with only one car on the highway , but if you have ever driven in a large city
you know that people drive bumper to bumper and at pretty fast speeds , I can recall many a day driving home from work
in atlanta 2 or 3 feet behind the car in front of me at 70 mph , and when there was enought space in front of my car there
would always be someone darting in front of my car in order to change lanes to make it to his exit ramp ... I would simply love
to watch a highway full of these auto braking cars mixed in with non auto barking cars but wouldn't want to be in any of those cars
on the highway.

plus I think the people with the non auto braking cars would be toying with the auto braking cars , you know how people are.

what happens when someone does change lanes ? does every car brake behind the the car that brakes because a car changed lanes in front of him?
it seems that this would require massive brake usage and massive brake usage will ultimately lead to premature brake failure that will lead to many more car accidents and deaths.

reducing problems that cause accidents is one thing , but are they reducing the number of cars on the highway by banning them from use the way
that they want to ban guns from use in the us.

do they limit the speeds that cars can travel on the highway so that there is no need for people to control the speed of their car?
there would be an awesome reduction in auto accidents if the car cannot travel faster than the speed limits on the highways and roads
but no they dont do that , they could to save lives , but they dont

I agree that there will probably be some problems with the auto braking cars. That will be a particular problem for the people you refer to who keep cutting into a different lane. I don't think the auto braking system will let you get within a few feet of the car ahead of you at 70 mph. And when somebody cuts in front of you your car should slow down to maintain a safe distance. There will be some teething pains. Of course the drivers who have auto braking and still want to drive like that will be the ones who hate it the most.

As far as changing lanes is concerned. I expect that the cars will have a braking schedule in the operating system. They won't put the brakes on full just because somebody is in front of them, the braking force will vary depending on the situation. The same as you do when somebody cuts in front of you right now. I doubt if that will cause very many early brake failures.

Limiting the speeds of cars to the posted limit is fine, but it has to be built into the car. The car has to detect the legal speed and limit the speed of the car. That gets tricky. In fact it leads to the self driving car.

Of course self driving cars would take a huge bite out of the auto accident record. They will of course drive some people out of their minds when they can't drive their cars the way they want to. I have seen a report that the self driving cars that are being tested have had a great safety record. All of the accidents they have been involved in have been when they were rear ended. It appears that drivers behind them sometimes assume they will keep going when the car decides it is time to stop. I have observed that myself. When I approach a traffic signal just as it turns yellow I check to see what the vehicle behind be looks like it is going to do. If it looks safe I will stop, if not I will go through. This is something that will have to be factored into the operating system.

For myself I think a self driving car would be great. I look on a car as a way to get from here to there. Some people look on the car as an extension of themselves and want to have complete control so they can drive it in any unsafe manner they want to.

And of course that brings us to one of the big problems with government safety laws. In the interests of keeping us safe they are keeping us from doing anything that is fun. There needs to be some kind of balance, but I have no idea where it should be.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
And now the ethics of the algorithms used by self driving cars. Phys.Org has a story about a paper discussing ethics used by the cars. The specific question asked is, what should the car do if it is about to run into a crowd and it can't stop. Should it miss the crowd and kill one person?

The story is at When self-driving cars drive the ethical questions

Just another port heard from.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I just thought about this , if all autos become self driven and if a self driven auto runs into a crowd of people and kills people I wonder how well will the families of the deceased manage their newly acquired auto industry?

the deaths cant be the fault of the people/drivers so you can never be sued for any accident or get a traffic violation , also this would remove the need for owners of these self driven autos to purchase auto insurance , and that will cost the us economy untold billions of dollars and jobs in the insurance industry , there will be no state or local income from traffic law violators , so the state or local governments will need to sue the auto manufacturers for any remotely detected traffic law violations. the people may only be leasing these vehicles to transport them from place to place so they shouldn't need to purchase a car tag or pay any taxes on the car each year that will all be the responsibility of the drivers of the vehicles and the driver is the operating system and the parts of the vehicle that the programming controls. and if you don't own the vehicle then you don't own
the driver and cannot be found guilty of any offense the driver will make. the leasing company would be at fault
for any offence that the vehicle makes or who ever owns and controls the vehicle.

I doubt that people will want to purchase a self driving vehicle knowing that they would be responsible for the damages it might do to others or their property.

you would basically be riding in a taxi cab only you pay a monthly fare vs the fare for each individual trip you hire.

so your talking about taking income away from state and local and federal governments , that's just not going to happen no
matter how sweet the idea is ... just like the energy taxes
prevent any type of energy savings from coming into use.

the law makers are just a group of crooks that belong to those
who would lose great amounts of money , so no it wont happen.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5