It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cities Are Worried Self-Driving Cars Will Cost Them Revenue

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Humans need not apply. Robots will steal your job but that's ok, because it's inevitable.





posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: NthOther




They don't care about your safety. They don't care about your "standard of living". All they want is your money.


This does not surprise you really though does it ?....the technology has been around for a long time for vehicles to have speed limitations relative to the speed zone,our safety has never been a concern.......



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

This does not surprise you really though does it ?

Of course not.

What surprises me is that there are actually people out there (and a depressingly hellish lot of them) who still think our government isn't trying to rape us every time we bend over to pick up the pennies they leave us to survive on.

They think we need it. They think it's good for us. That's what surprises me.

Well, maybe not "surprise". Confound?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 03:53 AM
link   
As an aside... do you think robot controlled cars are likely to be all electric? If so, there'll be a lot less CO2 emissions.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrCrow

As an aside... do you think robot controlled cars are likely to be all electric? If so, there'll be a lot less CO2 emissions.

Maybe. But all that extra electricity has to come from somewhere. You know, like... burning coal? Or maybe controlled nuclear reactions producing toxic waste that will outlast David Rockefeller?

Too bad we're running out of water for all of our hydroelectric dams, too.

In any case, I'm sure the government (General Motors) will sue itself (the People of the United States) for it's right to produce those emissions and charge us all for it.

And everyone will be confused for a minute and then go back to Game of Thrones.




posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: lacrimoniousfinale

I think you don't understand the premise. There is an extra tax brought upon the citizens that enriches the coffers of city hall and law enforcement.
Do you know that cops need to meet quotas to write citations (tickets)?
They even get bonuses for exceeding their quotas!!



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: MrCrow
That would be a good thing. If the powers that be don't block us, we will have less CO2 emitters.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:20 AM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

I hear ya,although i am not surprised by this behavior at all,for the most part people i have met do not really care,or if they do they are way to focused on family and surviving/succeeding to give it any real thought....at the end of the day it is just another bill to juggle,life goes on



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Good article, money generating revenue system everyone already knew about. Wonder how the cops will target non-white ppl driving cars now?

"Being a passenger while black."

They can't say "driving erratically", even if they do all the liability is not on the passenger in the back, take it up with Google, cop.

Cameras on the cars to counter their version of events

"Tail lights out" - no they weren't

etc.

Also if you're a passenger you should be able to get a copy of the video recorded for yourself/legal team in case of police altercations or accidents. This video should also be uploaded remotely to a server to prevent cops destroying it and the guise of "a law was broken and we need to confiscate the footage".

ppl need to remember cops can confiscate get any footage from phones nearby or in building because "a crime has occured" and they think you may "delete the evidence".

www.katu.com...

www.techdirt.com...



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Kratos40

I get the premise, alright. So long as I earn and spend money I don't have a choice about whether or not I pay income tax or value-added (sales) tax. On the other hand, I do have a choice about whether I speed, run red lights or drive drunk. I choose to do none of these things and therefore don't pay fines for them. Anyone can do this.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
...fewer and fewer traffic laws will be broken. Which means cops will write fewer and fewer tickets. Which means cities will have less and less revenue. Which means they will have to steal more from you some other way (taxation).


While the cities do lose some money to such a technology they also save a good deal as well. With driverless cars there is no need for traffic cops, red light cameras, drunk patrols on friday nights, and all the rest.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   
I like the idea of the car driving.
Municipalities are only there to trip you up
and arrest you for a variety of corporate revenue needs.

I say citizens for a small fee can do ride alongs
with Law enforcement . The citizen can wear a camera
and carry a clip board full of citizen police oversight tickets.
For police infractions against citizens. The cops would have to
pay out of pocket.
voila citizen advocate moola.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

Did you even read the article you posted? Lol, this was done by a group consisting of professors and a couple of students. Not the city, or any city



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: ghaleon12

Did you even read the article you posted? Lol, this was done by a group consisting of professors and a couple of students. Not the city, or any city

Yeah. A "panel" of experts. The kinds of people who do these "studies" and "papers" and the like.

What, would it make you feel better it was done by government officials?


edit on 7/4/15 by NthOther because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 05:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: gosseyn
I am in awe when I see how this system functions, its biggest enemy is true efficiency and true economy.


The system has always been less efficient. Or we would have light bulbs that last forever, stainless reinforced steel cars, concrete sidewalks that don't crumble every 2 years..........



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: gosseyn
I am in awe when I see how this system functions, its biggest enemy is true efficiency and true economy.


The system has always been less efficient. Or we would have light bulbs that last forever, stainless reinforced steel cars, concrete sidewalks that don't crumble every 2 years..........


To the point that it has created a cognitive dissonance. The real shame is that we accept it and talk about it 5 minutes and then forget about it.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: lacrimoniousfinale
The authorities are not stealing money from you. You are choosing to give them money. Speeding, running a red light, and driving drunk are all voluntary actions. No-one need pay a penny for these things.


Haha, indeed. I always chuckle and think "pillock" when someone whines about the "Government" grabbing your money because you ran a speed trap, red light or what have you..

Don't want to get a fine? Then drive properly, you div.

And that Ken chap in the OP is right, very little money is actually generated in the grand scheme of things. My local council makes so little money off parking fines they have effectively ignored anyone parking on double yellows or overstaying their alloted time in a carpark as it costs too much to employ Wardens to enforce the rules. They rely solely on people's good will - the same for may of the speed traps, they are non functioning as it costs too much to maintain them in relation to revenue generated and simply act as a deterrent.
edit on 4/7/15 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

The "stealing" part is from the increased taxation (in multiple forms) that will inevitably result from lost revenue.

You do understand that will happen, right? Now, whether you consider taxation theft... that's another matter.

I love how the pretty face depends on the seedy underbelly for survival. Yet no one wants to admit it, and fewer yet will even talk about it.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: stumason

The "stealing" part is from the increased taxation (in multiple forms) that will inevitably result from lost revenue.

You do understand that will happen, right? Now, whether you consider taxation theft... that's another matter.

I love how the pretty face depends on the seedy underbelly for survival. Yet no one wants to admit it, and fewer yet will even talk about it.


You're missing the point - if revenue is so low that Government can't even be bothered to enforce it - as it generates so little revenue it would be a loss maker to enforce - what revenue are they going to be "making up"?

Obviously, I am saying this from a UK perspective - as I said, my LA has effectively legalised illegal parking by choosing not to hire the Wardens needed to enforce it as it would lose them money.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 12:45 AM
link   
"Department of Revenue" -
NOT "Department of Traffic Safety" or anything of the like...
so... yea. Shocking.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join