Self driving meme

libs got dumb enough to believe their own bullshit mythology, basically. they really, really don't like the idea of paying people for labor.

is this still a thing in the lib media? i thought the self driving cars meme was dying but it might just be that i try to read from people who actually know what they're talking about on technology and politics. i have yet to meet a single person who actually understands computer science that believes in the driverless car meme, and met plenty who flatly told me it's bullshit (as my own basic knowledge of how a computer program works, how AI works, and how traffic systems would work, led me to assume).

Japanese and Chinese already figured out how to do high speed trains with regular rails, this tube shit is retarded, can't even enjoy the scenery.

I don't think self driving cars will have the same shape as human piloted cars (pic), probably can carry 8 people and be more of a last mile or niche addition to public transport, than a replacement.
Gig-economy taxi cabs are comparably inefficient with a mostly 1-driver-1-passenger ratio, and the circumvented labour protection laws are disturbing. The developed tech isn't wasted though, it can be used for vehicles that go places humans can't, if you want to build a large telescope on the moon, the mashing-vision developed for road-cars can probably be adapted for moon construction vehicle/robots.

this seems interesting can you provide a source

Attached: autocabine.png (782x498, 421.71K)

COMMUNISM IN AMERICA MEANS
WAR ON THE FAMILY
WAR ON THE SUBURB
WAR ON CARS

BASED

Unironically car culture is absolutely shit.

Attached: Texas anti-train protester yells remember pearl harbor.mp4 (671x170 742.54 KB, 35.26K)

based and redpilled

Attached: Fw you repost a comment that someone else got red _c7c47753afed3b5a5abde05e10d00069.jpg (287x325, 11.51K)

Zig Forums should watch these cager compilation videos. They're good. Gets the blood boiling.
Some raging cagers get so pissed off that they're stuck in traffic and motorcyclists / bicyclists can just ride past them, they open their doors to cause them to crash. Cagers get the bullet too.

Attached: Motorcycle Crash Compilation - Motorcyclist Crashes Into Open Door Compilation.mp4 (426x240, 14.66M)

It has always struck me as strange how no cyclist has ever though to smash their windshields after a crash like this. This kind of thing awakens my inner smashie.

Attached: Doored Cyclists of the World - Dooring Compilation.mp4 (854x480, 14.22M)

Stupid.
Fully developed Communism wouldn't mean cramming people into tightly controlled cities, it would mean spreading out population a bit more equitably and building up the rural areas so they have amenities like, say, a fucking doctor within a reasonable distance, without uprooting people and forcing them into goddamned hive-like apartment complexes. Urbanization is the tendency of capitalism and industrialization in its present (or past?) phase.

As for "war on the family", that's just retarded bullshit. Men and women join a union and raise children jointly because parents typically have attachment to their children and wish the best for them. It's stupid to take that one time Engels wrote about the origin of the family and take it to mean that kids can't have mommies and daddies any more and have to be systematically stripped from the more or less natural cycle of human development. Kids with unstable families and a shit home life have a shit ton of problems, as I know all too well, and if you think putting kids in large creches (in those urban hellholes you want to cram everyone into, as well) is going to be better you are in for a rude awakening. At least I was spared the agony of being in a day care.

The only thing that possibly makes sense is getting rid of this concept where everyone has a car, but the eco-daft shit where we have to put emissions and tell people they can't heat their homes in winter is just bollocks. If we had decent public transport and rationally planned out living areas, we wouldn't need cars nearly as much. (All these "cram everyone in megacities" plans also imply heavily that you won't even be allowed to walk between areas, because unplanned population migrations are against the policy, and oh of course we can't have the segregated (OH SORRY I MEAN "SPECIAL") zones moving where conditions are better in some sort of permanently class-segregated shithole. Free movement of people means fucking free movement, real free movement.)

We don't need to cram people into megacities, but we absolutely have to nuke suburbs where you have to drive 30 minutes just to buy a bar of ice cream and move all the residents into a couple of nice comfy commieblocks with central heating withing a walking distance of a school, kindergarten, convenience store, bus stop and a train station.

It would be way better to build a commieblock and surrounding amenities and call it a village or town, on top of the suburbs that exist that are just an example of how not to do urban planning. Throwing away the useful infrastructure is just silly, but you can restructure a lot of that shit a lot better than you can bulldoze inner-city developments that are probably going to displace some people who can't move easily.

This is a result of turning transport into an arena, this happens when people run out of impulse control brain-juice. Also it's not worth for bikers to retaliate, usually the initial car-to-bike contact will leave the car with enough damage to settle the score, plus the people that bought a traffic camera probably have have been subjected to so much BS that they build up a tolerance and no longueur flip out.

It'll take over a century to remake infrastructure that has already been build.
What the hell is free movement ?, in market capitalism people are sorted coercively by their money-points, the result is the gridlocked and gentrified cities. If you want to have a rational way of organizing this, you will have to direct people as well, because with absence of direction you'll get random movement, and that will likely cause people to clump up as well, albeit in a different manor as markets but probably not much better. All schemes (including unorganized) for dealing with mass society operate on certain rule-sets and produce a corresponding distribution, all possible configurations will have coercion, if you remove a authority that directs then you get conflicts and that will also result in coercion, albeit more random. You could strive to make all regions and areas equally appealing so that segregation into nice and crappy regions doesn't happen, but then you will have to direct people towards producing that. So …

I never understood self-driving cars, a human will probably be able to retain better reaction time and skill (and appropriate bending of road rules) than a programmed vehicle, as long as they take a proper course of drivers ed.

I think the reason burgers like self-driving cars is because so many people skip out on drivers ed past the basics and drive terribly as I have personally experienced, therefore they think that, like everything in the USA, a machine would be better off doing it for them.

...

Nah, it's purely a lib / ancap wet dream. Normal burgers think the automated car shit is moronic, because it is and they've probably gathered enough sense to realize the multiple problems with it (for one, you basically have to remove human drivers from the road or place them under severe restrictions, or you have to re-do the entire road/traffic system).

Pls come soon I’m so sick of driving 40 minutes to get fucking taco bell.

Attached: burger trolley problem.jpg (900x900, 167.95K)

Lmaoing at human supremacists, you're slow as shit.

t.someone who doesn't drive often

t.someone who doesn't drive often OR is a rally driver
limited self-driving systems are saving tons of people every year from car damage. To claim that most drivers are faster and better drivers than computers is ridiculous.

Am I supposed to feel sorry for most of these stupid assholes driving where they shouldn't be driving? When you take that kind of a risk driving unsafe you're not just putting your own life at stake. You're endangering everyone else near you on the road.

t. Ragin' Cager

Bikes belong in bike lanes and motercycles should stay in vehicle lanes. Stay where you belong for everyone's safety. "Cages" are pieces of deadly high-speed heavy machinery and auto transit is not a game.

Learn about carbon footprint, learn about economy of scale, learn about urbanism, learn about density, just fucking learn in general.
Communism would involve reducing car usage (I should say: dependency) by atleast 90% while massively expanding electrified rail powered by nuclear energy.

how the fuck are you endangering people by being on a bike when nothing on road is going anywhere.

So basically communism means the government decides to micromanage shit and cut all resource consumption to minimums (which will likely be disproportionately allocated to the "worthies" while large parts of the population starve?) That's not a communism worth fighting for.

You do realize the whole carbon footprint thing is specifically constructed so that austerity can be imposed, and they're not taking any other solution for an answer? People are taking meals off, living on soylent, ceasing car use already because they flat out can't afford one. The one thing where you can really cut the fat is to cease all meat production, beyond that you're basically cutting into standard of living in a big way if you want to meet those goals (almost as if that was the entire point of the project!) Cramming people into megacities doesn't help much more and has inherent quality-of-life tradeoffs, in addition to problems of urban overcrowding (and remember, their standard of living is being reduced so dramatically, these dense urban centers are effectively slums that the well-to-do and politically connected can paper over, and they can tell themselves they're actually doing "Communism" that leaves out 80-90% of the population.

There is another solution to global warming - you can let the temp rise and deal with it, and it probably isn't the end of the world. Or you can moderate carbon outputs through far less invasive reforms (and far more productive towards the aim of cutting emissions anyway, cramming people into megacities is all about political control and would require vast sprawl and displacement of people within large urban areas already, something which is already happening under capitalism).

Judging by this sentence, you don't seem knowledgeable on the scientific consensus on Global Warming.
If you think that 90%+ of the world population dying and a possible thermonuclear WWIII is not the end of the world (the consequence of a runaway Global Warming due to a "business-as-usual" CO2 emission trajectory), you're either a brainlet or a sociopath.

but we will be able to grow potatoes on the siberia for few decades user :DDDDDDDD

Clearly the leaders of the Green movement are fine with killing off 90% of the population in a controlled fashion. They just decide that those people aren't actually human. It happens all the time.

A nuke war by itself isn't the end of the world, or even the end of civilization. It's the end of the global financial system, and it's likely the end of the United States of America in any recognizable form. It's almost certainly the end of liberal democracy. It probably ends in a bitter stalemate where no one really wins, or it ends with Asia completely ascendant and the American continent becoming the world's backwater, worse than Africa. It's silly, Burgers stand to lose the most out of WW3 in almost every event, but are the people who keep trying to make it happen because of their infantile desire to start a Nazi masturbation fantasy and their stupid ideology of eugenics. I'm sure the Greens would like that outcome though, because they'll have theirs in any global order. Feudalists are quick to sell out to the new hegemon and if I were the victorious Asians I'd want to put in charge the same people who were running America into the ground so they can finish the job.
I don't think WW3 is happening though, unless Burger leadership has gone utterly batshit and there really is no one at the helm. No one wants that, not even if global temps rise in the worst case scenario.

Reducing the population by 80-90% is basically what you're asking to do with these Green policies, so one way or another you're going to get it. If it has to come to that, I want the outside chance that I can dislodge the bastards that have led us to this in the first place. But hopefully, maybe, there will be a reasonable way to mitigate the crisis without destroying everyone's living standard to a ridiculous degree, and we could likely capture much of the carbon with planned development towards technology to do that on a massive scale. The only problem is that our educational system has taken it as an article of faith that depopulation must happen, and further that education system basically teaches kids by bashing their heads repeatedly and writing off 50-90% of them as basically uneducable and worthless. Such a system will never produce answers, has no desire to and probably no ability to do so, because the products of such a system show remarkable autism when they could resolve a crisis they hold as a necessity in their minds.

More likely though the models are either made up for political purposes or flawed. Temps will rise, but the effects of that temperature rise are being dramatized and the Greens obviously don't want any technological adaptation that would preserve agriculture in higher temperatures, nor do they want to desalinate oceans for water.

It is very likely we are facing a natural population collapse as eugenics takes firmer hold, institutes strict population controls and restricts large parts of the population from reproducing, and exterminations of the disabled and precarious lumpen workers. This process is already started and will kick into high gear within the next 10 years, utterly decimating large swaths of the lowest class - right in the open, loudly, and proudly.

Be more subtle with the dogwhistling, retard.
Everything is micro-managed in the first place, everything has been engineered: your shitty low density cities and suburbs are the result of planning, freeways are the result of planning, car dependancy is planned, dismantling tram networks was planned. You're operating on a false premise that there is some dichotomy between "big government micro-managing" and some mystical autonomous way of organizing society. There are only dichotomies between the kind of micro-managing you support and you have to be honest about this.

Single family houses and cars are a fucking WASTE so yes, you will be forced to live in an appartment block and rely on public transportation in combination with cycling and walking. Even rural areas. I fully endorse forcing you to this.

Attached: single coach train.jpg (1600x1067, 436.82K)

A large state directed effort towards making the necessary transformation to the production base would be able to mitigate the crisis without destroying everyone's living standard. The education system is not likely going to be much of an obstacle towards making this change, it will not be able to reproduce current ideology in the face of changed economics.

I think it's a perfectly worthy technology to develop, but porky will, as always, apply it in hideously inefficient ways in pursuit of profit.

capitalism is about the efficiency of profit, not resources.
here that's the answer to every "why does this corp do this when it's obviously inefficient?" question

LOL maybe in burger land where half the drivers cheap out on drivers ed.
At this point in time? No, it's not. Humans may not have the robotic consistency of computers but they do have better reactions. A computer can malfunction I can't count the number of times a car sensor stops being reliable despite being brand-new so what makes you think a more complex computer would be better? Automated driving has perspective in easing the load for human drivers, but not in taking full control, removing the human element there is asking for trouble. I've driven a Mazerati and a Mercedes that had these auto-driver features (don't ask the model I don't remember). I was just taking them for a roll to see how well they drove (I was just having fun at one of those places that features new cars and just checking whether It was worth renting one out). Several times I had to grab the wheel and take over because the automated systems just didn't respond to minor things like a biker driving at the side of the road, it only responded to shit the size of a car and larger which is a danger if some stupid fuck decides to jay-walk and run in front of the car.

Driving between lanes makes everyone have to put more mental effort into their surroundings and defensive driving. It makes driver more stressed and prone to making life-threatening mistakes. Let me put this in clearer terms: road vehicles are the eighth leading cause of death in the world; they kill more people on a yearly basis than AIDS and tuberculosis. Automobiles are killing machines and the least you can do in a world where we still don't have sane mass transit is treat automobile safety with the respect it deserves.

Sadly people who spend an hour driving to and from work every day in a few of the big cities I've visited seem to take the wrong lesson. When simply getting to work is a major health hazard their response is to actually drive more dangerously, viewing every other vehicle on the road as a potential rival or obstacle to get past. Perhaps people will commute more responsibly when they're not trying to maximize the amount of time they spend working. Simply moving to socialism may actually alleviate a lot of the waste and health hazards of auto transit before we even build proper rail systems.

this is a good meme

Good, then they're paying attention.

False, the more alert to dangers a driver is, the better they avoid it.

True, but none of this justifies hitting bikers with a door.

jesus christ thats something my mother would shout

woowww im not even a rider but shutup fool

Cars are peak individualism and anyone with a drivers license is a reactionary.

and there are people who think GULAG isn't necessary

Just call them rehabilitation centers so anarkids don't complain.

...

God, you people are obedient retards. This whole thread is a reminder that you’re not actually leftists, just Zig Forumstards. Not even the faintest interest in optimizing a socialist economy as you would have if you were real, nor any interest in progressive technologization. Someone even threw the word soyboy in - because it’s such a mark of strength when people are such wimps that the cultural force which breaks them are men with enough self-mastery to eat healthy foods.

Consider the ability of a self-driving car fleet to flawlessly interleave at speed and you’ll understand - if you care about truth. Which of course you don’t, nobody on Zig Forums cares about truth.

you’re the Zig Forumstard

What's the point of a fleet of cars flawlessly interleaving around when all people are chilling in a massively more efficient public transportation?
The only cars that should be around in the future are trucks delivering goods. Self driving trucks make sense, though. Controlled by OGAS and shit.

Nice try FBI.

Also,

Really? I never had any urges to run over people.

Well cars still consume a lot of road-space/passenger even if they are all run by a traffic flow optimization computer, they still aren't as energy or resource efficient as busses trains or trams.
Automated cars will likely become one part of the transportation system, but unlike what is being promised by the futurist crowed they can't replace the capacity of mass transit systems, also they can't compete in speed with high speed trains. Also consider the bycycle friendly cities in the Netherlands, with electric motor assisted bicycles have shorter point to point travel times.

Like this guy

Said, it's a bubble, because ultimately the entire premise is based on the Venture Capital grift whereby a startup muscles it's way in on an industry in an entirely parasitic way. They achieve the funding for investment money by promising future profits that usually involve some kind of monopoly, which means big returns via rents. That's how they string investors along.

The problem with this however though, is that they fail to understand the relationship between why these kind of businesses tend to spring up in the first place, and how the reason for them is ultimately what dooms them because the future gains cannot be acheived for the same reasons. Fundamentally it's about the falling rate of profit. Profitability leads Investment, so when the rate of profit is low, investment in productive ventures becomes less plausible.

This creates a precondition that draws investment away from productive endeavours and instead towards things that involve cheap profits, like speculation or rent extraction, which themselves, being unproductive, weigh on the productive sectors of the economy and contribute to bubbles. Capital MUST continually be engaged in circulation, otherwise it cannot fulfill it's imperative of growth, both on a systemic level but also on the rational level of individual Capitalist or Firm. They will always choose the most profitable option in the short-medium term, and if the RoP is low, they will invest into unproductive sectors.

However, there are also other dynamics at play. I mentioned earlier that there is a relationship between why these ventures cannot come to fruition and this again is related to profitability. When profitability is low, there is a tendency towards the increased exploitation of Labour in order to increase profits, for obvious reasons. At the same time, developing productive forces usually involves some kind of technological advancement, which requires investment into research & development. These two things combined create a contradiction of sorts and it's also exactly why a company like Uber hyperexploits it's workforce whilst simultaneously promising new technology that makes things more productive.

Fundamentally, they misunderstand the relationship between technology & Labour, if wages are low, then Labour is cheap, and the capital intensive process of investment into something like Automation is less attractive. Some firms attempt to get around this by getting the state to subsidize the R&D, like for example, all of Musks firms, but this really doesn't solve the contradictions it merely attempts to assuage them. There are more complicated core concepts here related to the organic composition of Capital and such but I'm too brainlet to break that down into concise terms.

Taking all this into account, in a way, the startups that are obvious grifts are actually way smarter becuase they're aiming to trick large investors into parting with cash for something that is worthless in a much less risky manner than a company like Uber or Lyft, who run at a loss promising future gains in a whole network of State & Capital interests. I've forgotten some other stuff I wanted to mention so I'll leave it at this for now.

The hell it isn't. Bikers are slower than a car even in suburban roads and they're essentially without anything to protect them if a cardrives by too close and knocks one over. Driving between lanes or any of that shit is a fucking road hazard and that's a fact.
grist.org/biking/2011-02-14-cyclists-shouldnt-share-the-road-they-should-have-their-own-path/

Holy fuck this is either some S-tier bait.

Attached: bus car bike.jpg (468x313, 42.54K)

BASED taking everything on face value without understanding basic irony user

...

They are for what people want to use them for. You're never going to beat the convenience, utility, comfort and fun of your own car.
Cars are only inefficient because we make proles commute.
Sorry but your fantasies of a centralized grid that the politburo can control and arbitrarily punish your critics by denying them access is never going to come true.

Why is it mostly russians? Is this like their knockout game?

Any intresting articles, videos or books on why self-driving cars is just a meme?

Lol that clip at 4:50, dude must been raging hard that day.

Walk porkie

Attached: 09daef5bb3a411e8398d9af95ccbe027d7da76403c95a0ac642fccd0eff44968.jpg (1280x720, 46.4K)

Lol no.

Self-driving cars would be amazing if mandated. All cars connected to a network, forming mini-trains, being able to go fast as fuck, you can read or drink in your car. Why are you shilling for Uber, OP?

Hello red painted liberal

Fucking hell I didn't know it was that bad. The msm actually minimizes the effects. And we even have people who think it's a conspiracy. This actually drives me mad.

Hello, what do you think state-issued bicycles and free public transport for long-distance travel is for?
If you don't like walking, riding a bicycle to your nearest train station, or simply riding a bike to your destination, you're probably a fat fuck who will contribute nothing to the revolutionary cause.
Personal motorized vehicles should be reserved for military purposes and for those whose jobs require long-distance travel in this manner.

Attached: 89e186381849e339821779705114c188.jpg (500x671, 50.07K)

Shit tier post.
Which is nearly everyone. SF commute is 2 hours. Suburbs are 30-1hr away from work for most people. Die, brainlet.

It won't be a requirement under Communism, however, because suburbs will be burned to the fucking ground and housing will be relocated to be closer to areas where work is needed.

Attached: blocksyourpath.jpg (1125x1143, 692.7K)

no nigger, my home is in my suburb with trees and grass, not in some ratfuck dump city apartment, and i will get to and from work in 15 minutes with every other prole with our self driving cars going 150km/hr since they are all linked and can be optimized, fuck you

No, I'm talking about drivers which passed, what I expect to be standard in most of eurasia, standard theoretical and practical exams.

I agree that fully automated driving isn't reality just yet.
That's awfully strange story. I didn't have the chance myself to drive a car which have button for stuff like auto driving, but I have heard quite opposite stories about these functions when facing forest animals. I killed younger cousin of pic related motherfucker by destroying my right light. Cars with proper auto-break cameras monitoring everything around the road properly even in dark ended up much better, car was mostly ok and animal lived.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (624x351, 408.3K)

Of course the MSM minimises the consequences of Global Warming because ultimately the only non-dystopian way of curbing it, is by overthrowing capitalism and implementing some kind of global eco-socialism/communism.
Here's more food for thoughts. But please don't take the gravity of the Climate Crisis as an excuse to become a doomer, and instead use it as fuel for your revolutionary engine.

Attached: 1906556116.full.pdf (deepadaptation.pdf)

Public transportation will meet be as comfortable or as convenient as a car. People already fly then get into cars when they arrive, so cars are already being abandoned for long distance travel. Generally people drive long distance because it's cheaper.
Also personal cars act as emergency transportation during an emergency.
All this anti car shit is just tankie fetishization of central planning.
You want material capacity to be distributed as much as possible. And only centralize when not feasible.

Lol STFU liberal, the fatest people in America are poor people who have precarious transportation.
Waiting on buses and shit leaves you less time for self care like cooking own meals. Cars are inefficient because of commuting.

lel reminds me of this scene

Attached: NO MORE DEAD COPS.webm (1280x720, 853.42K)

There wont ever be socialism until america is thoroughly nuked, communist suburbia is impossible.

Posadism is the only way

The solution was there for 50 years, nuclear power.
We still have the time, channel the ghost of Stalin and switch the entire world to nuclear in one grand five-year plan.
Nobody will do it though because it's not profitable and keeping the "freedom" of only doing things that are profitable in short term is more important than survival of life on the planet apparently.

I think its just that more of them have dasha cams.

Yeah, we have the means to generate power in a cleaner way, and we could probably save a great deal of energy by not producing so much plastic shit of dubious utility, much of which just winds up in a landfill having produced little good beyond the exchange of money.

I do think wind and solar power generation is something that should be pursued aggressively, but we all know the Greens aren't actually interested in wind farms and solar panels everywhere, nor are they really interested in energy solutions or efficiencies that allow ordinary people to get more utility out of the energy that is generated. The promise of wind and solar is just dangled out as a way to tell the plebs that they can have some standard of living, but the truth is that they don't want the plebs to have a standard of living, that's the whole point they've started from.

Interesting thing, there is a shit ton of arable land in Africa that remains fallow, largely because no one there can realize a profit from developing it for productive uses. Of course, food production right now, and for the forseeable future, is not the problem. We develop enough food right now to feed something like 12 billion people, and it would take severe ecological disruption or a general, global war to really impact those numbers in a serious way. We could just as well replace depleted oil and fossil fuel power with animal and man power if it were needed, and we have an abundance of the latter.

this but unironically

You guys realize that it’ll be easier to reorient suburbs around trains then bulldoze the houses of a hundred million people.

Oh look, it’s an eco-eugenicist.

A lot of luddites in this thread. Self-driving vehicles have already reached the point of superiority over human drivers even without full autonomy. Once there's a significant number of them on the road, traffic will actually become better since they can communicate and anticipate each others moves.
The real issue is how they devalue the equivalent labor of a human and shifts more power towards the bourgeois. Seeing a company like Uber build customer goodwill and market dominance through the hardwork of their under protected workers depresses me.

Trains will be better then cars in 90% of situations, that said this tech development is good because all the algorithms developed in these experiments will help Computer Science as a field develop. Also this tech could translate to self-driving planes.

*self driving public transport

Most of middle America has an infrastructure poorly suited for daily train travel, or wouldn't have enough demand to offset the cost. In these areas people tend to live 15 to 45 mins away from work rather than 45 to 90 mins for those who work in the city.
While I did enjoy using the Metrolink when I lived in California, trains aren't a one size fits all solution. Rural and suburban America needs a public transport solution tailor made for it.

I dont know, its the most retarded thing ever, and I like cars to the commodity fetishist jay leno tier, but seriously, like nigger, just take the bus, but nobody wants to topple the fucking horseshit industry that is automobiles, even though people who work on diesel electric trains make way more money, never face the layoffs car companies that "keep people employed" constantly do and dont exist to simply fuck over consumers, rail shipping costs and public transportation costs go down even during a market monopoly but tell any of these fucking idiots without them short circuting and going on about "but muh jobs" while every month the auto industry is busy firing people cutting their pay and stealing their pensions

nigger, auto pilot has existed forever

yeah, population density is low enough they can actually drive a car without it taking half their day, so they should just drive

You do realize that trains got started in middle america.

fuck off costfag

Fucking homo sexual.

Attached: g1.jpeg (1280x853, 640.33K)

I travel regularly for my job (tradesman so I don't work in any one spot longer than a year) and often I find myself going to warehouses in the middle of nowhere so public transportation isn't really an option for me.

No matter where I live in my city I could be traveling up to an hour for work so I'd rather just be able to sleep through it and get more time in my day. Sad to say most people would probably just be forced to answer emails and shit.

In Russia it's a law to have dashcams, therefore a lot of incidents get reported on camera.
If America will have a law to have dashcams, same thing will appear.