Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionstransportationStarted 7mos agoActive 4 days ago1 here now

Should the government regulate the development and deployment of autonomous vehicles?

Autonomous vehicles, or self-driving cars, use technology to navigate and operate without human intervention. Proponents argue that regulations ensure safety, promote innovation, and prevent accidents caused by technology failures. Opponents argue that regulations could stifle innovation, delay deployment, and impose excessive burdens on developers.

29 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7mos7MO

Yes

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7mos7MO

No

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Would you trust a self-driving car to safely transport your loved ones? Why or why not?

 @9YDW8XRfrom Alberta  answered…2mos2MO

Not for another few decades. We ships not rush this.

 @9YDSY9Lfrom Alberta  answered…2mos2MO

Not at this time. More research and a lot more is needed.

 @9Y9MXMCfrom British Columbia  answered…2mos2MO

No. I dont trust other people on the road so why would i trust a computer

 @9XYC3PVfrom Ontario  answered…2mos2MO

At this time the technology is not good enough. There are plenty of reports of cars auto-correcting people into dangers and accidents as is.

 @B26DZ65from Alberta  answered…4 days4D

It should absolutely be allowed for autonomous vehicles to operate in Canada. They already are safer than human drivers. You cant refute the data

 @B24K54Cfrom British Columbia  answered…2wks2W

They should not be allowed until much more testing is done

 @9V2KX9Xfrom British Columbia  answered…3mos3MO

Yes, to ensure greater safety standards and testing

 @9RZPX67from Alberta  answered…5mos5MO

there should not be teslas used by local police forces, if local services cannot meet local demand for food banks

 @9RSWBTSfrom British Columbia  answered…5mos5MO

The government should ban the use of autonomous vehicles.

 @9RLFFWSfrom Alabama  answered…5mos5MO

Invest in making safe autonomous vehicles safer than human drivers who can be very reckless

 @9RKQP9Qfrom New Brunswick  answered…5mos5MO

Why do we need self driving vehicles to begin with?

 @9RCBSYBfrom Ontario  answered…5mos5MO

Let private industry develop at whatever pace they want but the government should definitely regulate the deployment of autonomous vehicles.

 @9QQBF3Cfrom Ontario  answered…6mos6MO

Yes, they should ban the development and deployment of autonomous vehicles for safety reasons.

 @9PXSBSYfrom Ontario  answered…6mos6MO

Autonomous cars should not be created and should stop getting produced

 @9YNQFHTNew Democraticfrom Alberta  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, autonomous vehicles are dangerous and have no place on public roadways.

 @9W8J636from Ontario  answered…2mos2MO

If they were to be implemented, yes. But they are unnecessary.

 @9V7CCZWNew Democraticfrom Saskatchewan  answered…3mos3MO

Yes the government should outright ban autonomous vehicles.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

In an era of self-driving cars, do you think learning to drive manually will become obsolete, or will it remain an essential skill?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

What kind of tests or licenses, if any, should be required for someone to 'operate' a fully autonomous vehicle?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

How would the widespread use of self-driving cars change the way we design cities and roads?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Do you think the benefits of self-driving cars, such as potential reductions in traffic accidents and increased mobility for those unable to drive, outweigh the risks and uncertainties?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

If a self-driving car caused an accident, who should be held responsible: the manufacturer, the software developer, or the passenger?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

How would you feel about taking a ride in a self-driving car that has no human control options?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Imagine a future where all vehicles are autonomous. How do you think this will affect our daily lives, our environment, and the way we think about personal vehicle ownership?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Should self-driving cars be programmed with moral decisions, like choosing between the safety of passengers or pedestrians?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

How do you think the shift towards autonomous vehicles will impact jobs in transportation, such as truck drivers and taxi drivers?

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

Vetting Fiasco: Trump's Defense Pick Caught in Sexual Assault Allegation Storm

CNN commentator and New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman said President-elect Donald Trump’s team missed Pete Hegseth’s payoff to a sexual assault accuser when they vetted him to be secretary of defense.Hegseth is among a raft of cabinet picks facing tough confirmations, and who aren’t being subjected to the customary FBI checks, instead being vetted by private firms. Over the weekend, Hegseth’s attorney dropped the bomb that there was a confidential settlement with a woman who accused the former Fox News host of sexual assault. On Monday night’s edition of CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Haberman revealed that her sources in Trump world did not know about the payoff, which was missed in the vetting “because it was a private settlement”HABERMAN: There’s more concern from some people around Trump than there is from Trump himself, about this whole issue. Trump has really dug in, and has told advisers that he is going to stick with Hegseth. Now, we’ll see if anything else emerges.They did do a vet, we are told. This did not show up, this issue, because it was a private settlement, according to the people, who were briefed on what took place. Trump really likes Pete Hegseth. But this did introduce the thing Trump doesn’t like, which is an element of surprise and a negative headline. And so, we will see where this goes.

▲  59 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Inside the Podcast Revolution: Trump’s Unfiltered Strategy and Harris’s ‘Meltdown’ Risk

Tech billionaire Elon Musk attributed President-elect Trump’s election victory, at least in part, to the lengthy podcast interviews he did during the campaign.In an interview late Tuesday with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Musk said Trump’s podcast appearances showed the American public that he was a normal person.“I think it made a big difference that President Trump and soon-to-be Vice President Vance went on lengthy podcasts,” Musk said in the interview.“I think this really makes a difference because people look at, like, Joe Rogan’s podcast, which is great, and Lex Fridman’s and the All-In podcast, and, you know, to a reasonable-minded, smart person — who’s not, like, hardcore one way or the other — they just listen to someone talk for a few hours and that’s how they decide whether, you know, you’re a good person, whether they like you,” he added, according to a clip highlighted by Mediaite.Trump conducted many interviews with new media during his campaign, as well as with legacy news organizations such as Fox News.Last month, he joined Joe Rogan’s podcast for a 3-hour long interview. The celebrity host later endorsed his candidacy.His opponent, Vice President Harris, did not appear on Rogan’s podcast because, according to “The Joe Rogan Experience” host, the Harris campaign only had an hour and required him to travel to her. Rogan said he felt “strongly” that the “best way to do” an interview with the vice president would have been in his studio in Austin, Texas.Musk recalled posting on his social platform X account that “nothing would do more damage” to Harris’s campaign than going on Rogan’s podcast, “because she would run out of non-sequiturs after about 45 minutes.”“You can’t hide for three hours,” Carlson replied.Musk added, “Yeah, like, hour two and three would be a complete melted puddle of nonsense. So it would just be absolute game over. That’s why she didn’t go on.”“But on the other hand, Trump, he’s there, and there’s no, there’s no talking points,” the Tesla CEO continued. “He’s just being a normal person who’s having a conversation, and doing three hours of Rogan, no problem.”

▲  349 replies

Active 13hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…6 days6D

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  1913 replies3 agree