Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

eamd59 t1_j1wlvrr wrote

I have been caryring a switchblade on my bike travels for 3 years along with bear spray in case someone has the balls to try and rob me. Finally legal

115

Wuz314159 t1_j1x7h23 wrote

I just am poor. Nothing to steal. Saves so much trouble.

25

IrrumaboMalum t1_j1xcww1 wrote

You think the person robbing you knows or cares? People have been killed over the change in their pocket in the past.

25

Wuz314159 t1_j1xdni6 wrote

I live in Reading. Everyone knows I don't have jack-shit to steal.

29

Weary_Ad7119 t1_j1yiuzl wrote

About 80 per 300k or .00002% of the population are considered to been the victim of violent robberies.

Folks really got to stop ingesting shitty news without context. You do you, but this dude is optimizing for a really low occurrence crime.

10

Excelius t1_j1zj6f4 wrote

> About 80 per 300k or .00002% of the population are considered to been the victim of violent robberies.

Might want to double check your math. You forgot to multiply by 100 to get the percentage. That's .02%.

Not sure where you got your data from but it's likely that your stat is an annual rate, if so over a lifetime the cumulative risk would be nearing 1%.

3

IrrumaboMalum t1_j1ys3c4 wrote

You going to roll the dice when it comes to your safety or the safety of your loved ones?

2

Weary_Ad7119 t1_j1yv5tq wrote

More like not worry about. Yes, 100%

11

IrrumaboMalum t1_j21xy7n wrote

That is on you. Hopefully it works out.

I'll continue proactively taking measures to protect myself and my family while you gamble on not taking measures to protect yourself and your family.

1

Fine-Blacksmith-9330 t1_j1wt9jq wrote

I just carry a glock

15

NoWarrantShutUp t1_j1z5twd wrote

I am not a fan guns but have been considering. Never held a gun in my life though. And no before anybody asks I don’t want your guns taken away.

2

Next-Conversation-16 t1_j1xatio wrote

Get a Sig

−5

defusted t1_j1wnmor wrote

I just carry a Kershaw, they've always been legal

9

RevolutionaryEar1789 t1_j1ydrr0 wrote

Obviously its your choice and your right to defend yourself but why not buy a gun? The reality of having a knife fight is way uglier than shooting someone

8

AtBat3 t1_j1x7ni8 wrote

Not gonna lie I didn’t know it was illegal until know and I was doing the same thing

5

NoWarrantShutUp t1_j1z5in4 wrote

Oh man you have BEAR SPRAY?! Holy fuck dude, you’d paint that entire would be robber in that. That shit blows my mind.. friend had to use it in Yellowstone. Scariest shit of my life.

3

BigBlackCrocs t1_j1y5x5u wrote

yaknow a gun is legal too.

2

Grimm2785 t1_j1yzg0l wrote

The funny thing is that there are situations where you could legally walk around with a AR strapped to your back but couldn't carry a pocket knife. Philly I believe for example bans all knives from being carried unless your actively using it for work. While firearm laws are uniform across the entire state (even if certain cities like to act like that's not the case), knife owners unfortunately don't have that same protection.

6

MaybeADumbass t1_j1z3cv0 wrote

>While firearm laws are uniform across the entire state...

They are uniform except in Philadelphia, which has its own process to obtain a LTCF and where open carry is only legal if you have a license.

3

Grimm2785 t1_j1z3ozq wrote

Yeah except Philadelphia has no right to have their own process. Thats actually against the law and has been challenged more then once. As for the open carry issue, that's because they are a city of the first class. All that means is that they hit a certain population number. It's not because Philadelphia decided to make it that you needed a license for open carry.

5

mjh215 t1_j1yddiu wrote

This was the work of Doug Ritter (and his lobbyist) over at kniferights.org so if you appreciate it, consider making a donation. They also have a big raffle each year to fund these efforts.

1

SurfinPirate t1_j1wuoh0 wrote

What is the world was the reasoning for having fentanyl test strips be illegal??

110

randompaaccount t1_j1x9lj6 wrote

Same reason they want to make access to birth control more difficult. Gotta make things they disagree with as dangerous as possible.

100

Wuz314159 t1_j1x7udd wrote

The Republican belief that if you use drugs, you deserve to die?

64

interestedfluffydog t1_j1xcm5k wrote

The strips were considered "paraphernalia" under old PA laws. But I don't think (could be wrong) that there was a specific reasoning, but rather those laws cover so many things associated with drug use.

45

Exodys03 t1_j1xxyfk wrote

They were likely just lumped in with other paraphernalia laws because… you know… drug stuff is bad. Allowing people to know whether their next dose is likely to kill them or not is certainly a good step.

31

eternalrefuge86 t1_j1yin9k wrote

Because some people who live in the 1920’s believe that this and other harm reduction methods are “enabling.” As an addict in recovery this infuriated me. This isn’t going to stop people from using at all. It’s just going to increase deaths.

I hope when reduction organizations ignore this law and pass them out anyway.

25

thelazykitchenwitch t1_j1ynura wrote

I work in a MAT treatment center, and while I can't directly give them to my patients until January 2023, I can leave them on a table for them. I also tell them about nextdistro.org where they can get free narcan, fentanyl test strips and condoms.

11

eternalrefuge86 t1_j20cfd3 wrote

Good. Thank you for what you do. I’m in MAT currently and it’s been a godsend. I take my Suboxone I’m the morning and go about my day as any normal person would. It has given me my life back. And people somehow want to fight that. Blows my mind.

5

thelazykitchenwitch t1_j23nmsl wrote

I think that you are an amazing person! You wake up and make a choice every day, and you choose to take your life back. I could go on for hours about how our society treats the issue of addiction and shames everyone who doesn't fall into their cookie cutter definition of what they think k sobriety is, but I won't. You are amazing and strong and MAT is sober!

2

JustVern t1_j1y2ilg wrote

Please enlighten me.

Wouldn't those test strips help IDing fentanyl to protect people?

Cops, Docs, Nurses, etc? What am I missing here?

12

pocketbookashtray t1_j1xk1i5 wrote

Democrats getting kickbacks from big pharma only wanted them available with a prescription.

−51

pizzapantifa t1_j1y1e9y wrote

And your lukewarm explanation as to why a democrat signed the bill to end that conspiracy theory?

love how they always disappear to chudpost elsewhere when asked to try and make sense of the stupid shit they say.

20

Catvac-u-um_adnase t1_j1wugn2 wrote

Switchblade decriminalization

In November, Wolf signed a law that legalized the possession of switchblade knives in Pennsylvania. The “automatic knives” had been classified as an offensive weapon in Pennsylvania. The law legalizing the knives goes into effect in January.

Crackdown on Pennsylvania Turnpike toll absconders

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has more power to crack down on thousands of drivers who don’t pay their turnpike tolls.

Starting in January, the Turnpike Commission will begin to notify registrants that their registrations will be suspended if they do not pay tolls worth more than $250. At least a month later, the toll agency can ask the Transportation Department to start the process, and PennDOT said it would give the owners six weeks’ notice.

The Turnpike Commission says they hope the new law will help them recover more than $100 million in uncollected tolls.

Pennsylvania Turnpike tolls increasing in 2023 Driverless vehicles

Governor Wolf signed a bill in November that allows for the regulation and operation of “highly automated vehicles with or without a driver.”

“This technology brings the potential for significant advancements in vehicle safety and mobility, and offers economic development benefits across Pennsylvania,” Wolf said in a signing letter.

Sex traffickers added to Megan’s Law

Those convicted of sex trafficking in Pennsylvania will now be required to register under Megan’s Law as registered sex offenders.

Data breach notification

Governor Wolf signed Senate Bill 696, which expands the definition of personal information to include medical and health insurance information. The bill also includes a username or e-mail address, in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account.

Pennsylvania not among states raising their minimum wages in 2023 The law also states that if a state agency determines that it is the subject of a breach of the security of the system affecting personal information maintained by the state agency or state agency contractor, the state agency needs to provide notice of the breach of the security of the system within seven business days following the determination of the breach.

The law goes into effect in May 2023.

Junior firefighter training

Minors are now able to enter a burning building in Pennsylvania if they are 17 years old and have permission from a fire chief or parent/guardian.

Senate Bill 1027 amended the Child Labor Act and will go into effect in January 2023.

74

AFD_0 t1_j1weyj5 wrote

Cool, so now we can go back to covering up the goofy URL at the bottom of our plates?

64

ronreadingpa t1_j1wh9ej wrote

One can hope. URL is silly. License plates shouldn't be used for advertising (personally not a fan of vanity plates either). Or at least do it discreetly, such as using a symbol that most recognize, such as the keystone for Pennsylvania.

39

RunningOnPunkTime t1_j1xj8o2 wrote

The whole concept of states having their own fun license plate designs came about specifically to advertise tourism for that state.

23

MrRojoRicin t1_j1wx5vx wrote

Volunteer Fire Departments are hurting I guess?

55

Dr_Worm88 t1_j1xwmbo wrote

Volunteerism is on a nose dive. A lot of companies will be unable to respond or unable to respond safely in a very short time frame if they aren’t already.

It’s an unsustainable model.

29

sassycritter235 t1_j1y66no wrote

As it should be. People risking their lives to save others should be paid with full benefits, especially good health insurance.

46

DarkRitual_88 t1_j1ym9uc wrote

Many people don't have the time or energy to put into it. Hard to devote time to volunteer when you have to work two jobs to have any sort of financial security.

31

Dr_Worm88 t1_j1yomq0 wrote

Trust me I get it. That’s the driving factor on why it’s unsustainable.

13

CertifiedFukUp t1_j1z527q wrote

That’s why there needs to be dedicated full time fire personnel.

7

Dr_Worm88 t1_j1zbvnc wrote

Not every community can afford that. It’s easier for class 3 cities and above. But everyone else…not so much.

4

CertifiedFukUp t1_j1zc1ge wrote

My small town in Montgomery County just spent $12 million on a new fire house and 3 full time shifts for fire personnel to live there 24/7 during their on time.

It’s something that is always undervalued but is so necessary.

7

Dr_Worm88 t1_j1zcgrm wrote

Which is great and I’m super happy you have that. I live in an area covered by volunteers and they are solid people. But there’s no way the township or even neighboring townships could offer FT staffing. Even if you use current infrastructure there just isn’t money to do it safely.

That’s gonna be the case for a lot of areas in the state.

Honestly it’s gonna get really interesting really quickly.

3

CertifiedFukUp t1_j1zcrk5 wrote

We were covered by volunteers and other departments up until recently when this station was put in. Response times have gone down significantly.

3

Dr_Worm88 t1_j1zd08v wrote

No doubt they went down. You see the same thing when you transition EMS from volunteer home response to career or volunteers w/dedicated shifts.

It’s just expensive. Really, really, expensive.

3

CertifiedFukUp t1_j1zlwmp wrote

Yeah, we literally have more dedicated fire fighters on duty at night than we have officers on duty in our township at night.

It is EXPENSIVE and people don’t realize what kind of upkeep and maintenance it takes. Fire trucks, equipment, the station itself etc.

2

Dr_Worm88 t1_j1zm3tj wrote

That’s….confusing to an extent. At least with PD you can have neighboring agencies help out pretty quickly.

With fire I wouldn’t expect anyone to respond with less than 3 people per apparatus.

1

CertifiedFukUp t1_j1zmany wrote

You could do the same with fire departments though. It’s all about response times for both officers and firefighters.

The thing with the volunteer firefighters is when they get a call, they’re at home etc. full time guys live in the station.

2

Dr_Worm88 t1_j1zmkuv wrote

Oh absolutely. The other variable is what are you getting? You know the state minimum in training and licensing is done for the LEO.

But the state only legally requires you to do two things to be a volunteer FF:

Pay your dues to the social club.

And

Take your hazmat training.

Anything above that is discretion of the fire department. So standards are all over the map. You have no idea who’s on the next unit or what they can do.

1

CertifiedFukUp t1_j1zmt66 wrote

Well, that’s not entirely true. Our townships station is accredited.

But agreed.

1

Dr_Worm88 t1_j1zmy1b wrote

Which is entirely optional. But out of curiosity and please don’t unnecessarily out yourself but accredited by whom?

1

CertifiedFukUp t1_j1zn8b6 wrote

You know what, I actually don’t know the answer to that question. I did a walkthrough of the new station a few weeks ago and was talking with the on duty guys, he told me that and I didn’t really ask anything else regarding it.

1

Dr_Worm88 t1_j1znpvn wrote

No worries my dude. There’s a lot of optional credentials out there.

A lot get national credentials and you get recognition for a certain percentage being credentialed which to me is great.

There’s an ISO rating everyone gets based on a variety of factors. But that’s an insurance rating.

Ultimately and sadly no one (unless the township that recognizes them demands it) has to do it. A volunteer company can say pay your $1 and do 8 hours or Haz Mat training and you are a FF in Pa.

Thankfully a lot of those types of departments have gone by the way of the DoDo. But it’s still the bar and it’s kind of scary not know who’s coming or how well trained they are.

1

Xwiint t1_j1zf43h wrote

Where I grew up has dedicated, paid firefighters that are part of the local government budget, along with EMS. It was wild to me when I moved over here that EMS is private and firefighting is volunteer. I can't say anything about the firefighting services, since I've not yet had to use them, but for sure the EMS response is quite a bit worse.

3

CertifiedFukUp t1_j1zf9gd wrote

Our fire house has dedicated living space for the EMS crew as well with our own ambo. It makes all the difference.

3

Forged04 t1_j1yy41w wrote

Yeah. I volunteer at my local one, and we are always short on people.

2

XxAnon5861xX t1_j1xxu2e wrote

Decriminalize marijuana??? Oh wait. I was dreaming.

54

eternalrefuge86 t1_j1yirst wrote

Right. How could we possibly do something truly bipartisan?

13

PaApprazer t1_j1yyxib wrote

Not to mention “we the people”. Haven’t we already said it’s ok?

6

hpghost62442 t1_j1xhxus wrote

MINORS CAN NOW RUN INTO A BURNING BUILDING

41

JustVern t1_j1y36cd wrote

Wait. If I were 5...I would run back to save my Grandma.

Is what they're saying is 17 YO can volunteer for a local fire department?

Cudos. Kids are sent off to war everyday. Let them be able to rescue local town folk after good training.

5

pocketbookashtray t1_j1xkd19 wrote

Not real minors. 17 year olds only.

−12

SladeTheCat t1_j1yqgx3 wrote

>Not real minors. 17 year olds only.

Uh, I hope this person isn't allowed around children.

7

OhioJeeper t1_j1z3lss wrote

Not real burning buildings either, only training burning buildings.

Like I get what your saying, 17 is absolutely not too young to start off firefighting training for 17 year olds that are interested, but choose your words more carefully lmao.

IDGAF how the hivemind is voting here though, your mind is in the right place. Though they are minors in a legal sense treating 17 year olds that have a strong sense of vocation like children when it comes to developing useful real world skills is exactly why we end up having to collectively deal with 25+ year old children when they eventually burn out.

3

BigBlackCrocs t1_j1y6d1b wrote

Oh boy we get to stay at 7.25 minimum while milk doubles in price!

37

butterfly105 t1_j1z7nh8 wrote

Is there anything to prevent the people from putting on a ballot measure that legislators should only earn the minimum wage in our state?

9

flutterbylove22 t1_j1zae92 wrote

Actually yes.
In Pennsylvania, citizens do not have the power to initiate statewide initiatives or referendums. Voters of Pennsylvania have never voted on a ballot measure to authorize a statewide initiative and referendum process.

6

Malamadre581 t1_j1yvvda wrote

In pa it’s ok to be paid a jug of milk per hour /s

6

Fine-Blacksmith-9330 t1_j1zc4yd wrote

Is there something preventing you from getting a higher paying job ?

−7

BigBlackCrocs t1_j1zuclz wrote

Lower floor = lower ceiling. If I make 12 an hour because min wage is 7.25, someone in the exact same job in a state with higher minimum wage would be making more money

4

[deleted] t1_j1wcx1t wrote

I would have never guessed that auto knives would ever be made legal in pa. Wtf?

29

[deleted] t1_j1wgefj wrote

[deleted]

−20

SAR_and_Shitposts t1_j1wkc3w wrote

You really can’t, though…

23

Fine-Blacksmith-9330 t1_j1wtivs wrote

Yes yes you can just pay the $200 tax stamp wait for godverment approval and off ya go

9

cigarmanpa t1_j1wu7x4 wrote

Then the price of a car to get an automatic weapon

20

NoCokJstDanglnUretra t1_j1xr0s3 wrote

The price of the weapon was not the argument. The argument was whether one can legally possess an automatic firearm in the state of PA, which one can, easily.

2

cigarmanpa t1_j1xt1te wrote

Who was having an argument? I was simply adding to the conversation

3

CBScott7 t1_j1wr9u8 wrote

Yes, there are perfectly legal means to accomplish this

4

IrrumaboMalum t1_j1xdgew wrote

And it starts with about $20,000 on average for a "cheap" automatic, assuming you want to tote around a rifle or a submachine gun. But if you want an automatic pistol...well...you better have a lot of money. To my knowledge only the Beretta 93R is on the registry, and there are single digits of them and even dealer sample (not civilian legal or transferable) are $250,000+. A civilian transferable 93R is probably going to be close to $1,000,000 if one shows up for sale.

4

ronreadingpa t1_j1wgl0g wrote

My first thought too. Wonder who pushed for that? With all the crime, seems a bad idea. Can cities, such as Philly, override the law? If so, that's good in a way, but bad too, since it will lead to less uniformity of the law across the state. To be clear, they should be kept illegal.

−24

Newt451 t1_j1wtwzm wrote

There is no reason automatic folding knifes should be illegal.

25

SAR_and_Shitposts t1_j1wkq5l wrote

You can actually get arrested if you carry any kind of knife in Philadelphia. Even a tiny keychain Swiss Army knife can land you 90 days behind bars

22

M2hBDf1Nhw1VB7 t1_j1wl0ze wrote

That’s fucking lunacy!

18

OhioJeeper t1_j1z3zcz wrote

Don't worry, if the cops think you're "reasonable" they'll just let you go. No room for extreme bias in enforcement there!

1

M2hBDf1Nhw1VB7 t1_j1z488j wrote

Figures. I always carry a knife too. I’d definitely forget to take it out of my pocket because even NYC permits it

0

[deleted] t1_j1woxam wrote

Philly always disclaimed other counties firearm concealed carry permits until that was struck down as illegal. Its not surprising they think they can make up their own rules for pocket knives also.

11

KindKill267 t1_j1wvl1h wrote

Because if I were to be stabbed, I would be extra upset that it was a fully automatic switchblade.

14

rinfodiv t1_j1xmyxo wrote

I have had a plate frame since I moved here from Florida… I did not know they weren’t legal lol

22

pitchforksNbonfires t1_j1wpta1 wrote

Driverless vehicles

Governor Wolf signed a bill in November that allows for the regulation and operation of “highly automated vehicles with or without a driver.”

“This technology brings the potential for significant advancements in vehicle safety and mobility, and offers economic development benefits across Pennsylvania,” Wolf said in a signing letter.

Just four months earlier...

https://www.govtech.com/fs/nhtsa-releases-new-data-about-autonomous-vehicle-crashes

Vehicles with driver assistance systems and autonomous technologies have been involved in hundreds of crashes in the last year.

Newly released data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) details when crashes occurred in vehicles equipped with Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), the driver assistance features found on many cars, and Automated Driving Systems (ADS), which refer to autonomous technologies being tested — and in some cases deployed — on public streets and roadways.

Vehicles with ADAS have been involved in 392 crashes in the last year, according to the federal highway safety agency. Six of those were fatal, five resulted in serious injuries, with 41 resulting in minor or moderate injuries. Four involved a “vulnerable road-user,” such as a cyclist or pedestrian.

——————————————————-

The new PA law does not make our roads safer - it does exactly the opposite.

18

cardboardunderwear t1_j1xl54j wrote

>The new PA law does not make our roads safer - it does exactly the opposite.

Thats only true if the technology in question is more dangerous than people driving without it. Its not clear to me in the article that thats the case.

18

pitchforksNbonfires t1_j1xus8s wrote

That there are currently several NHTSA safety investigations into different Tesla models indicates the seriousness of concern about self-driving vehicles.

In the instances below, it appears that the technology in question was indeed more dangerous with it than without it:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tesla-driver-watched-horror-another-125137176.html

This one burst into flames after hitting a barrier.

”He got out and spoke to the driver of the crashed Tesla, who was not injured in the incident. The driver told Kaplan he had his 2018 Model X in Autopilot but "it suddenly veered hard to the left and stopped against the wall."

—————————————————

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/tesla-in-full-self-driving-mode-caused-8-car-pile-up-report/ar-AA15zmQJ

”The report states that the Tesla Model S was traveling at about 55 mph and shifted into the far left-hand lane, but then braked abruptly, slowing the car to about 20 mph. That led to a chain reaction that ultimately involved eight vehicles to crash, all of which had been traveling at typical highway speeds.”

”Tesla’s driver-assist technologies, Autopilot and “full self-driving” are already being investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration following reports of unexpected braking that occurs “without warning, at random, and often repeatedly in a single drive.”

−2

Weary_Ad7119 t1_j1yj9bo wrote

And you think human drivers don't do this? Pointing out individual events is worthless.

6

pitchforksNbonfires t1_j1zobq4 wrote

Of course drivers are fallible. There’s never been a question about humans making mistakes, being distracted, etc.

The argument is whether technology - sensors and computers - can take the place of human senses and judgement.

Is there a difference when a distracted driver hits a wall, vs a technology-assisted vehicle doing exactly the same thing because the computer took a crap, or the vehicle was hacked?

There’s no difference.

Maybe there is a difference. A driver-driven vehicle can, at the last minute - and if the driver regains alertness - possibly avoid a collision. A computer-driven vehicle may not have the same ability. We’d have to have confidence that the computer could recover as quickly as the human could. And we don’t know that it can. There are instances - described in the article links that I posted, saying that the computer doesn’t recover, and the accident happens.

1

Misbemisbe t1_j1wueui wrote

ADAS is not the same as Autonomous Vehicles

11

pitchforksNbonfires t1_j1xv6nv wrote

True.

Drivers should always have the option of disabling optional features that they don’t feel comfortable with.

Sensors and computers can and do malfunction. They can be hacked. It is the responsibility of the driver to determine what, if any, comfort level they may have with technology that has the potential of interfering with their ability to control their vehicle.

2

AdlerFMT t1_j1wvrjo wrote

While I dont particularly like self driving/ level x autonomy/ electric/ whatever you want to call it and the nannies that come alone with it, I could play the devils advocate. Because it depends on how you look at the data. While only my unprofessional opinion, please consider the following...

​

If you look at it this way, 392 crashes and 6 fatalities is a fairly small number when the number of roadway deaths is in the tens of thousands.

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration today released its early estimates of traffic fatalities for the first half of 2022. An estimated 20,175 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes, an increase of about 0.5%..."

​

I also managed to locate a PDF from nhtsa showing a large number of ADS cars were rear ended. Take that information as you will but it would be hard to squarely put the blame on ADS cars on that.

I absolutely think these things should move more slowly and it looks like so does nhtsa, but Id think just straight up saying ADAS cars are dangerous isn't really the case.

10

pitchforksNbonfires t1_j1xsz52 wrote

ADAS vehicles are here to stay, although I’ve read accounts of drivers being surprised/alarmed at how the vehicles react at certain times.

Driverless vehicles are downright scary.

While there are bad drivers on the road, the selling point of this technology is that it is less apt to be fallible in certain circumstances than a human being.

Onboard computers can and do malfunction. They can be hacked. They are fallible, no less than a human driver. Sensors and a computer can’t take the place of eyes, ears and (hopefully) an informed, experienced driver.

The NHTSA article doesn’t mention how ADAS/ADS vehicles factor into the data, though there are currently several NHTSA investigations into some Tesla models and their Autopilot software. There have been accidents, injuries and fatalities.

——————————————-

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tesla-driver-watched-horror-another-125137176.html

This one burst into flames after hitting a barrier.

”He got out and spoke to the driver of the crashed Tesla, who was not injured in the incident. The driver told Kaplan he had his 2018 Model X in Autopilot but "it suddenly veered hard to the left and stopped against the wall."

As far as the prevalence of ADS vehicles being rear-ended, some could be due to sudden and unexpected braking, as happened on Thanksgiving in San Francisco on the Bay Bridge:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/tesla-in-full-self-driving-mode-caused-8-car-pile-up-report/ar-AA15zmQJ

”The report states that the Tesla Model S was traveling at about 55 mph and shifted into the far left-hand lane, but then braked abruptly, slowing the car to about 20 mph. That led to a chain reaction that ultimately involved eight vehicles to crash, all of which had been traveling at typical highway speeds.”

”Tesla’s driver-assist technologies, Autopilot and “full self-driving” are already being investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration following reports of unexpected braking that occurs “without warning, at random, and often repeatedly in a single drive.”

0

NotNowDamo t1_j1wyxw9 wrote

That is only one data point. It doesn't tell us if ADAS is safer or less safe than driving without ADAS.

6

cpr4life8 t1_j1xbq6i wrote

Agreed. Of course my only comment when I mentioned it was "nooooooo" and people who apparently don't give a fuck about motorcyclists or bicyclists or pedestrians disagreed.

3

Super_C_Complex t1_j1ylt39 wrote

There's over 6 million car crashes a year.

Yet 392 makes our roads less safe? Got it. Yup

2

chickenonthehill559 t1_j1wvunw wrote

Facts would differ from your opinion. Driverless cars are less likely to be involved in an accident. There are too many bad drivers on the roads today.

1

pitchforksNbonfires t1_j1xu08q wrote

Facts would differ from your opinion.

The various NHTSA investigations into Tesla’s Autopilot software indicates that there are many safety concerns about ADS vehicles.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tesla-driver-watched-horror-another-125137176.html

This one burst into flames after hitting a barrier.

”He got out and spoke to the driver of the crashed Tesla, who was not injured in the incident. The driver told Kaplan he had his 2018 Model X in Autopilot but "it suddenly veered hard to the left and stopped against the wall."

————————————————-

And last month’s Thanksgiving day 8-car pile up on the Bay Bridge in San Francisco:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/tesla-in-full-self-driving-mode-caused-8-car-pile-up-report/ar-AA15zmQJ

”The report states that the Tesla Model S was traveling at about 55 mph and shifted into the far left-hand lane, but then braked abruptly, slowing the car to about 20 mph. That led to a chain reaction that ultimately involved eight vehicles to crash, all of which had been traveling at typical highway speeds.”

”Tesla’s driver-assist technologies, Autopilot and “full self-driving” are already being investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration following reports of unexpected braking that occurs “without warning, at random, and often repeatedly in a single drive.”

−1

chickenonthehill559 t1_j1xvsqy wrote

Agree driverless is not perfect. Compare this to how many DUI are recorded every day. Add in the number of dumbass drivers who are distracted by their phone. But hay there were a handful of driverless crashes.

4

pitchforksNbonfires t1_j1xyspp wrote

I’m not looking forward to sharing the road with either occupied autonomous vehicles or driverless ones.

If an impaired driver is in full self-driving mode, would they still get a DUI? Very likely yes, because they’re still supposed to be alert enough to oversee or supervise the self-driving function. And they always have to be ready to take over driving. In these instances an argument can be made that the self-driving function can be safer (once/if they work the bugs out).

Drivers who are distracted by their phones when actually driving their vehicle will likely do exactly the same thing when in self-driving mode. But again, they’re supposed to be constantly monitoring the screen for real-time data on the car’s operating functions. Same argument as the DUI.

Technology is fallible. We’ll see.

1

OhioJeeper t1_j1z7rfm wrote

> If an impaired driver is in full self-driving mode, would they still get a DUI?

Why should anyone care if they do or don't get a DUI? Is this about punishing alcoholics or saving lives?

>Drivers who are distracted by their phones when actually driving their vehicle will likely do exactly the same thing when in self-driving mode. But again, they’re supposed to be constantly monitoring the screen for real-time data on the car’s operating functions. Same argument as the DUI.

Same question, do you care more about punishing distracted drivers or saving lives? These are two separate concepts, law enforcement is not the same as accident prevention technology even if they might be attempting the same end result.

>Technology is fallible. We’ll see.

So are people, as you're demonstrating now. This is something that's already been heavily studied:

https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-vehicles-safety

I was pretty fortunate to be taking a law and ethics class as part of my master's with someone who's close family member was killed when their Tesla collided with the side of a semi truck that made an improper turn. The story was widely publicized and what got reported was so far off from what any official investigation found actually happened based off of evidence. This was all at least 5 years ago, and there's been a ton of research done by NHTSA on the tech making a strong case for exactly the opposite of what you're saying.

I'm genuinely curious if you're sitting on some credible evidence of cars with automated driving tech actually being more dangerous than those without, because from where I'm sitting it seems like you're going off the same type of "logic" people use to argue against seatbelts saving lives.

1

pitchforksNbonfires t1_j1zsmdv wrote

Why should anyone care if they do or don't get a DUI? Is this about punishing alcoholics or saving lives?

I’m fairly certain that the point of citing and punishing impaired drivers is to make roads safer in order to save lives. Meaning that the “saving lives” part is the primary, not secondary purpose of DUI (and distracted driver) laws.

My points about DUI and distracted driving are relevant as they would directly affect the operation of technology-assisted vehicles, from both a safety and law-enforcement standpoint.

The primary purpose of traffic law is public safety. To say it a different way, the concept and development of traffic laws were borne out of the need for public safety. Is there any question about this?

What flows from that original purpose - the punitive nature of law enforcement - in no way reduces or alters the original and primary intent of traffic laws.

The NHTSA article you link does indeed extol the virtues of technology-assisted vehicles. Interestingly, the agency continues to have numerous investigations into safety problems with technology-assisted vehicles. Weird dichotomy.

The story was widely publicized and what got reported was so far off from what any official investigation found actually happened based off of evidence

A personal anecdote has no validity unless you can provide some specifics or documentation.

This was all at least 5 years ago, and there's been a ton of research done by NHTSA on the tech making a strong case for exactly the opposite of what you're saying.

Again - Cite the “ton of research by NHTSA.” Links to actual studies would be nice. It’s funny that you say they have research that points to the safety of technology-assisted vehicles, yet there are numerous investigations by the same agency questioning their safety. Both things can’t be true. (redundant paragraph)

————————————-

from the MSN article I linked:

“As CNN points out, this crash occurred just hours after Tesla CEO Elon Musk made FSD Beta available to all drivers, regardless of if they passed the Tesla safe-driving test conducted by an onboard driver-monitoring system.”

“The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is also investigating both Autopilot and FSD Beta after years of inaction. Tesla is now reporting fatal crashes involving FSD. Here’s what the probe has found so far, according to previous reporting:”

“First reported in August, NHTSA’s probe targeted 11 crashes involving Teslas. Thursday the NHTSA said that it had identified six more crashes, and that 15 injuries were tied to the crashes, including one fatality. The crashes involve collisions with first responder vehicles, though NHTSA indicated Thursday it would be investigating more than that.”

What’s troubling about this:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is also investigating both Autopilot and FSD Beta after years of inaction.

“After years of inaction...?”

This contradicts your statement, “there's been a ton of research done by NHTSA on the tech making a strong case for exactly the opposite of what you're saying.”

Sounds like the Tesla and the technology got a pass for a long time.

Unfortunately there continues to be a substantial human toll to this inaction.

1

OhioJeeper t1_j1zw1ys wrote

>My points about DUI and distracted driving are relevant as they would directly affect the operation of technology-assisted vehicles, from both a safety and law-enforcement standpoint.

What are you even talking about? What about being drunk is relevant to the operation of a "self driving vehicle" that wouldn't be with a regular vehicle?

>Both things can’t be true.

multiple things can absolutely be true at the same time and I see no point in continuing this conversation as it seems you struggle with that concept, especially if you'd so quickly reject NHTSA research as not being sufficient so quickly without offering up some credible counterpoints. That MSN article you linked is a single data point, not a definitive source.

>A personal anecdote has no validity unless you can provide some specifics or documentation.

Fucking peak irony right here, I'm not about to post up one of my former classmate's personal information for you to tear apart their story because you'd rather steer conversations toward your own shitty misguided view of the world than broaden your perspective. I offered that to give some context to how long this "debate" has been going on.

1

pitchforksNbonfires t1_j20wueg wrote

Stay classy - you elevate the dialogue that way. Profanity is always a nice touch.

People like you always get tweaked when you can’t make an argument without insulting the other party. Every time.

What “NHTSA research?”

Where is it? Link? Point it out, for God’s sake. Is that asking too much? Support your argument.

What about being drunk is relevant to the operation of a "self driving vehicle" that wouldn't be with a regular vehicle?

Being impaired is just as relevant in a self-driving vehicle as in a regular vehicle. That was my point.

You wrote, Why should anyone care if they do or don't get a DUI? Is this about punishing alcoholics or saving lives?

You were the one diminishing the element of impairment - by the above statement.

The msn article is one event. As I’ve repeatedly stated, there are numerous NHTSA safety investigations into accidents involving technology-assisted vehicles - and I provided a link - which you completely ignore because it doesn’t fit your agenda.

Regardless of the fairy tale world you may live in, the safety of these vehicles has not yet been established - based on the numerous accident investigations.

As far as your make-believe anecdote, a story can be relayed without divulging any personal information. You chose not to do that.

You have an elevated view of your debating skills, as evidenced by your dropping the “my legal ethics course” and your “masters,” in your original post. That’s supposed to either impress or intimidate. People who do things like that don’t have the confidence of genuine one-on-one debating, so the “credentials” are supposed to give them an advantage.

It didn’t work.

1

OhioJeeper t1_j21ar8r wrote

>Stay classy - you elevate the dialogue that way. Profanity is always a nice touch.

You're right and I'm sorry, I should have realized there was a child present.

>People like you always get tweaked when you can’t make an argument without insulting the other party. Every time.

Calling you out on being wrong isn't an insult when you're wrong.

>What “NHTSA research?”

>Where is it? Link? Point it out, for God’s sake. Is that asking too much? Support your argument.

🖕I linked you to their site directly, I'm not your mom/teacher/librarian/whoever it was that failed to teach you how to research something on your own. But because I'm in the Christmas spirit, here's a Wikipedia article to get you started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_self-driving_cars

>Being impaired is just as relevant in a self-driving vehicle as in a regular vehicle. That was my point.

Not when we're talking about technology that would provent drunks from plowing into pedestrians. Police are either responding to accidents or hopefully cathing the person before they kill someone. Self driving tech is always there.

>The msn article is one event. As I’ve repeatedly stated, there are numerous NHTSA safety investigations into accidents involving technology-assisted vehicles - and I provided a link - which you completely ignore because it doesn’t fit your agenda.

I don't have an agenda, but it's starting to make sense why you thought a souce offering up the opinions of politicians on NHTSA research was the same as a source that's directly from NHTSA.

>As far as your make-believe anecdote, a story can be relayed without divulging any personal information. You chose not to do that.

I'm sure more details from my personal anecdote were all it's going to take to convince someone that's arguing against NHTSA based on the opinions of politicians.

>That’s supposed to either impress or intimidate.

The intention was to provide context for the anecdote but it's absolutely hilarious that you think that can be used to intimidate. Don't let those stupid science bitches make you more smarter.

>It didn’t work.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ can't save everyone from themselves.

1

WikiSummarizerBot t1_j21asq9 wrote

Impact of self-driving cars

>The impact of self-driving cars is anticipated to be wide-ranging on many areas of daily life. Self-driving cars have been the subject of significant research on their environmental, practical, and lifesyle consequences. One significant predicted impact of self-driving cars is a substantial reduction in traffic collisions and resulting severe injuries or deaths. United States government estimates suggest 94% of traffic collisions are caused by human error, with a 2020 study estimating that making 90% of cars on US roads self-driving would save 25,000 lives per year.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

1

chickenonthehill559 t1_j21tr9t wrote

You completely missed my point about drunk and distracted drivers. I would be on the road with a driverless vehicle that has a very small error % rather than be on the road with a drunk or distracted driver. Just because there are laws against driving drunk or distracted, does not mean there are people doing it consistently. Every day there are plenty of dumbasses driving drunk.

1

HonestOcto t1_j1xpr2a wrote

The online Turnpike can be confusing to pay your toll on, my first toll easy-peasy. I tried to pay my 2nd toll on it and had to call the phone number to talk to an operator because online wasn’t finding my toll, automated didn’t find it and the operator had to go through 2 systems to find it. I was like 3-4 days (maybe a week?) past 90 days late paying my toll. What I thought was going to take 10-15mins to pay took me 2 and half hours.

18

Silver-Hburg t1_j1wrsjw wrote

edit: Nope I’m dumb … it is indeed state run.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Turnpike

Aren’t tolls on the turnpike private? We should not be using tax payer resources to police collection. Maybe they should put people back in the booths at entrance points that scan their plates and deny entry if they have unpaid electronic tolls. Oh wait cuts into their profits to manage their own payments.

14

upghr5187 t1_j1x04y3 wrote

The turnpike commission is owned by the state.

15

hardygardy t1_j1wze2a wrote

No. The PA turnpike is not private.

10

Silver-Hburg t1_j1x05qc wrote

Doh well I am a dodo bird so I rescind my rant. For whatever reason o thought PA Tpk was privately owned but yeah PTC is indeed run by the state. I am curious just how much of those violations are PA residents/plates versus out of state.

5

framistan12 t1_j1xhfij wrote

There have been rumbles about privatizing/selling/leasing it from time to time. It was a big topic of discussion during Rendell's administration in the 2000s.

4

MaraJade24601 t1_j1z9pcy wrote

I can't believe that sex trafficking wasn't enough to get you on the list of sex offenders until now?! And when are we going to throw out the statute of limitation to criminally prosecute rape?

6

kodaachrome t1_j1xo9rs wrote

the turnpike thing is literally just a punishment for residents but whatever more money in the pockets of pendot. maybe theyll work on 422 or rt 1 with all the 100 million dollars they're planning on stealing

5

themakerofshoes t1_j1xwlh4 wrote

All they’re doing is giving the PTC the some teeth to be able to collect unpaid tolls. No one who actually paid their tolls should have a problem with this.

12

kodaachrome t1_j1yrwjx wrote

tolls should be abolished. its not like they do anything to the roads anyways

−4

Sennva t1_j1z4n3s wrote

Stealing? No one forces you to drive the turnpike. There are other routes.

I'm not a fan of toll roads either. Especially the PA turnpike. So I do the rational thing and avoid them rather than racking up unpaid tolls that would obviously come back to haunt eventually. Anyone who didn't expect them to collect on these at some point is delusional.

−1

Jasole37 t1_j1xgk9e wrote

How many knives is too many to carry?

4

Grimm2785 t1_j1yznh2 wrote

I carry two every day. A folding blade in my pocket and then a multi tool on my belt.

2

Jasole37 t1_j1zadk4 wrote

When I worked construction that was my default. Swiss army knife in pocket, utility razor clipped to my belt.

1

Grimm2785 t1_j1zamxy wrote

I still work construction. I'm sure as hell not using my good pocket knife at work where it'll get destroyed. That's why I carry my gerber when I'm off and my kobalt razer knife when I'm working.

1

SammieCat50 t1_j1z54b1 wrote

Of course PA will not raise the minimum wage

3

tacticalardvark t1_j1zprb6 wrote

I don’t understand what’s so hard about putting card readers on the turnpike. Scan the ticket and swipe your card.

3

NewYork_NewJersey440 t1_j25sfln wrote

As I recall the Turnpike even tested out accepting credit cards at a few smaller interchanges like Willow Hill. This would have probably been c. 2018-19.

1

[deleted] t1_j1ym6a4 wrote

Protection is not the reason for this law to be relaxed, im guessing. Our corrupt and feuding legislators dont care if we are protected or not. Look at the fuss lawmakers have been making about guns and all the skewed statistics and advertising by msm against gun ownership. They’ve demonized ar style guns, magazine size, bayonet lugs and any other silly but ‘scary’ attribute in a media blitz against them even though they amount to a small fraction of crimes committed by guns. No, their stance is just call 911 and we will help you out of any occurring crimes which is a joke.

This has to be something else. I was reading a bit to learn that microtech knives had a facility in bradford pa that has either closed or is closing. The reason the company sites is that they have trouble finding skilled labor. Perhaps they wanted to expand their line into automatic knife manufacture there. The current law would not allow ownership or manufacture so could this be be a last ditch effort to sweeten that deal?

1

cpr4life8 t1_j1wpwg9 wrote

Driverless vehicles Governor Wolf signed a bill in November that allows for the regulation and operation of “highly automated vehicles with or without a driver.”

“This technology brings the potential for significant advancements in vehicle safety and mobility, and offers economic development benefits across Pennsylvania,” Wolf said in a signing letter.

Noooooooooooo!

0

thisoldbroad t1_j1xmux2 wrote

I predict that: Robberies and assaults by knife will increase, and Some dummy is going to bring a knife to a gunfight, with disastrous results.

−9

TheRealGeigers t1_j1yd7be wrote

What if I told you, criminals didnt follow the law to begin with so this would only help protect law obedient citizens 🤔

3

CheckPlease54 t1_j1ypvvk wrote

So why have any laws? Using that logic

−2

OhioJeeper t1_j1z9h21 wrote

Unknowingly based.

Being reductive works on children but in the context of getting rid of a law that effects PA residents on r/EDC more than actual criminals maybe they have a point? There's something like 1000 stabbings across the entire US every year. I'm pretty sure blunt objects are used in more frequently in homicides.

1

TheRealGeigers t1_j1zakoq wrote

What do you mean? This isnt even the "gatcha!" Moment you think it is.

So person A is a criminal and illegally has a knife and approaches person B with an illegal swotchblade. B, being the law abiding citizen, has no blade and gets mugged. Under the new law though, B can now legally carry a switchblade thus causing A to rethink their mugging as they just needed some quick cash for drugs and did not want to end up in a body bag.

Notice how in both scenarios the criminal always has the weapon? Its the same reason I will defend the second amendment. Criminals dont care about background checks and will have a gun no matter what, so better to legally allow your citizens to defend themselves.

0

CheckPlease54 t1_j1zbyo4 wrote

You don’t understand the second amendment.

0

TheRealGeigers t1_j1zhafj wrote

The right to bear arms in an attempt to make it so the govt cant ruthlessly control its population, no?

Same situation, the govt being the criminal and the general population being the law following citizen.

Edit: also nice strawman there, didnt even address the counter point I made you just picked something else to pivot the conversation.

1

CheckPlease54 t1_j1zjg3j wrote

No, that’s made up.

Your counterpoint is proven wrong in every country that limits weapons , another false talking point.

1

TheRealGeigers t1_j1zm2q1 wrote

I didnt realize there were no murders or crime in places that ban weapons!

Which country/city should I move to to secure my immediate safety?!

1

CheckPlease54 t1_j1zokto wrote

Strawman, because facts make your position look stupid.

1

TheRealGeigers t1_j1zq7bv wrote

So give me some sources, references, literally anything. All you keep saying is im wrong and thats it.

Any place that has a ban on a type of weapon has violence in a different form to circumvent it. In the UK people were throwing acid in peoples faces as a weapon cause guns and knives are generally a no-go but throwing acid in their face wasnt a big charge.

Also, just like the second amendment i dont think you know what strawman argument means.

1

CheckPlease54 t1_j1zqogx wrote

Ok, you just strawmanned the UK. Use numbers from the UK, and you lose…it’s that easy.

Are you saying laws changed behavior in the UK? I thought they were useless at that?

You also started off immediately being wrong about the second, and saying things not anywhere in the Constitution

1

TheRealGeigers t1_j1zsp6o wrote

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/

Claims the right to bear arms to defend yourself, which would that not be the same principle for the knife?

Laws do change peoples behavior, the law abiding citizens but NOT criminals which is my point that you keep skirting.

GG EZ no re new team.

1