SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Most cycle-commuters will tell you cycling to work is the best way to get to and from work and it's probably doing you some good. However a recent major study, published in the British Medical Journal, suggests that the health benefits are staggering, slashing the risk of heart disease and cancer. FTFA:
Research has consistently shown that people who are less physically active are both more likely to develop health problems like heart disease and type 2 diabetes, and to die younger. Yet there is increasing evidence that physical activity levels are on the decline.
The problem is that when there are many demands on our time, many people find prioritising exercise difficult. One answer is to multi-task by cycling or walking to work. We've just completed the largest ever study into how this affects your health.
You can read an article here at The Conversation website and you the original research is here at the BMJ website.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Saturday September 09 2017, @02:54AM (4 children)
I've just got to ask...
Your current sig indicates you're extremely hostile to self-driving cars, but self-driving cars are much more likely to see you than human drivers. They'll not only save lives; they very well might make it safe enough for you to bike again.
You don't think that's worth swallowing your philosophical opposition for?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Justin Case on Saturday September 09 2017, @11:15AM (3 children)
When a person causes an accident, they are (usually, supposed to be) held responsible.
Who is responsible for self driving cars? I have never heard that answered.
It is going to be just like Windows Updates. Yeah, oh, sorry, our stuff is crap. Here's an update. No, that didn't end the crap. But the EULA says it's nobody's fault. And by the way, we just unblocked telemetry again.
(Score: 1) by terryk30 on Saturday September 09 2017, @02:04PM
So far, Volvo [forbes.com] has stated it will accept responsibility, as well as Google and Mercedes-Benz [engineering.com] (all with expected caveats of course).
Of course how accidents are investigated or reported will be affected. At the scene, if one driver (or the driver, in the case of driver/cyclist) tells the cop "my car was driving", of course this would be verifiable, but then how does the investigation continue?
I suppose the car manufacturer would (in the early stages of adoption at least) dispatch a small tech & legal team w. accident telemetry in a format suitable for accident investigation. However for those cases where the other operator was a human driver (or cyclist) who did something bone-headed (i.e. was clearly at fault) and the self-driving car could not avoid the collision, perhaps investigation-tailored telemetry could be obtained (or uploaded) by the cops and it would suffice as the "other side of the story". Lotsa "hmmm's..."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @04:32PM (1 child)
That should be decided by law-makers. Personally, I think they should be insured by the owner (or lease-holder if leased), and the insurance company pays out for any damage they cause. If you have an opinion, you should let your local representative know so suitable laws can be passed.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Saturday September 09 2017, @05:19PM
If someone deliberately designs, builds, and sells a machine that through the carelessness of its makers autonomously and uncontrollably kills people, the designers makers and sellers should be held for multiple murder charges. No, it doesn't make it OK if you call that machine a "car" instead of a "terminator".
So, which legislator exactly do you have in mind, who listens to the public instead of the corporate lobbyists?