Oh, I absolutely understand the logic, but I live in coastal Virginia. An underground shelter during a hurricane in my area would be a death trap, so the novelty of an underground shelter is just friggin awesome in my eyes. (Said friend is from this area too, so he pretty much feels the same way.)

And of course a high end detailer is going to give an utterly unbiased opinion of his primary competition.

That was my thought. Why does he have so many of the same (or VERY similar) bike?

My garage would not change in the slightest. Garage houses my office, my squat rack (not currently in use because I suck), and my bounty of motorcycles. My cars can rot outside.

How about a 3-car garage built as a 1.5 floor with a small living space above the garage? Does that count as a tiny house?

Buddy of mine is seriously considering buying a house with a subterranean storm shelter in the two car garage. He told me about it and I was all like, “You haven’t bought it yet? Buy that shit!” Ignoring the fact that he lives in OKC now, it’s a subterranean storm shelter. Who wouldn’t want that?

I disagree. _I_ care. When writing estimates, having the engine size on the back saves me the picoseconds it takes to look up the engine size once I run the VIN. Same with the 24v DOHC badges, ABS badges, and the like. All of those things are relevant to me once you wreck your shitty car.

That “Trail Rated” bullshit…

As I said in another post, I am not speaking to “why”. I am speaking to actual real world reactions. Real world, real people, what the OP and first response said is incorrect. I don’t care if it is done out of instinct or altruism, it is how people drive. Thus saying that autonomobiles should be programmed to drive as…

Precisely where do you see anything about altruism in my post?

The post I was responding to was essentially saying we should program the car to drive like a human and that a human would never choose that way. This is clearly incorrect, and thus I pointed it out. In other words, the fallacy is the idea that the autonomobile should drive like a human. It explicitly should not. It…

*facepalm* I completely missed it. My bad.

Nice to see that I was correct in my assessment in the previous thread on this. Good luck cleaning this one up, Mercedes.

Statistically speaking, no. You wouldn’t. In the real world, people die in car accidents all the time because they swerved to avoid a dog or cat. So, yeah, statistically, you’ll swerve to avoid the pedestrian.

Well, maybe not you specifically. Maybe you’re That Guy. But everybody else avoids the pedestrian. Because…

Am I missing something? Human history is rife with stories of self-sacrifice.

Meaningless conjecture. They swerved in an attempt not to hit the unprotected pedestrian knowing full well it imperiled the lives of everyone in the vehicle. The logical choice is to keep going. I tell people all the time to hit bambi. Don’t try to avoid the deer/puppy/whatever unless it’s a human being. The danger…

My thoughts as well.

If this happened in my car, my dashcam would’ve had a laugh track laid over the action. Because that shit was funny.

Yes, I know, altruism, gasp. Sorry, but almost twenty years of handling claims has shown me that this is statistically the case when dealing with pedestrian-automobile interaction.

I hope Mercedes enjoys having to self-insure all of their cars, and having their high-end major loss bond backers raise rates, as well as seeing very painful margins on the claims they will be paying through the nose on when the autonomobiles start whacking pedestrians.

The truly stupid part is that this is not even…

Meh. My gut check says insurance fraud.