Geometry changes, especially with snow and ice. Last winter, Boston made a bunch of roads one way only because the snow was so deep there was only one lane. Most roads and driveways were impossible to see around requiring people to inch forward and hope they didn't get hit. There are so many things to consider, you can only write so much code and slap on so many sensors.

You're getting close to requiring the thing to be sentient. IMO, getting all that right is beyond our current capabilities. Not to harp on traction control, but many vehicles have a kill switch for it. Why? Because it does the wrong things in some conditions. Granted it's usually a dumb system that mostly just reacts to wheel spin, but that's what we'll be saying about self driving. Well, that's because it's just using LIDAR and GENIUS-TECH. If it had GENIUS-TECH-2 it'd be better. But that's why we still have this steering wheel..

We'll get more assistive technologies like lane control and automatic braking, but I think it's pure fantasy to think that full automation is something we'll be enjoying any time soon. I'd put it well beyond a decade. Probably beyond most of our lifetimes. Now excuse me, I must be off in my Mr Fusion powered anti-grav car.

Did I mention that we don't require a permit for firearms for open carry?

There are conditions where it helps to have some speed, especially climbing hills. You also don't want to be riding the brakes on icy surfaces. One numb-nut does that, and next thing you know, everyone is going off the road. Much simpler traction control systems haven't even perfected this yet, let alone how to drive when the signs and lane markers are covered by snow and ice. Maybe self driving cars will be a warmer climate thing long before it's common in the north.

The state doesn't require it, but the banks do if you have a loan on the car. Same thing if you're leasing. That probably accounts for a large portion of those carrying insurance. I tended to carry insurance anyway even when the vehicle was paid off because the risk versus the cost made sense. The state can require individual motorists to have insurance if they do cause damage and are found to not have the finances to cover the loss.

This whole topic seems silly though. Driving is way too complicated for cars to be driving themselves anytime soon. This is going to be one of those things that's always ten years away.

New Hampshire does not require auto insurance.

Screw that. When are those lazy anarchist pedestrians going to start paying sidewalk and crosswalk tax? And when are they going to have registration plates so we can report jaywalkers? I'm getting rather tired of people thinking they're just free to move about anyway they want to. Don't even get me started on adults offering piggy-back rides. Clearly unsafe. Also, peds should have to wear belts and helmets and hi-viz.

The upgrade process asks you if you want "express settings" or if you want to make choices. If you're wanting to keep certain apps as defaults, you go the non-express upgrade route. It takes a few minutes at most. The only reason for Mozilla to be worried is that MS has the new lightweight browser while Mozilla now has the bloated piece of crap. The only problem with MS's new Edge browser is the lack of ad block.

Premature deaths? Are we arguing the 2nd amendment or abortion? I'm going to ignore that bit of your reply since it's insanely inappropriate given the left's stance on the sanctity of life.

You're a bit mixed up. You mention the "legal landscape" and dive right into murders and mass shootings. Those things aren't legal. Those things also often happen in supposed gun free zones. I would argue that leaving large groups of people in an area and eliminating a means of self defense is the bigger problem. It's been said a million times but it's true, guns don't kill people. People kill people. You're vilifying the wrong thing.

We had an incident right down the street from my home. A guy held up a convenience store in the early morning hours. The clerk had a concealed weapon and defended himself. The robber got away and the clerk was fired for violating company policy. He has a wife and children. The robberies had been happening for weeks with no sign of letting up, the police clueless. Maybe you want to sacrifice those people working in those conditions. I don't. He had every right to defend himself and get back to his family alive.

This is why we can't have a middle ground. The opposition always speaks of this perfect society that would exist if not for guns. It's fantasy. People will find different ways to kill each other. We banned guns from planes and lost thousands of lives to zealots with box cutters. You're preaching fantasy while people are trying to get by in reality.

The only thing holding back the US is the border between North and South Korea. The US is in compliance otherwise. Honestly, what options exist there? The US won't commit more troops, so it'd either have to put our current troops in danger or we'd have to pull out. If the US withdraws, that would likely entice North Korea to invade.

Sorry, but you're wrong. As an example, NRA is in favor of better mental health background checks. The trouble is, they're vilified to the point where people don't even care to know the facts and instead proceed on assumptions. NRA also spoke out against Internet "hunting" when someone wanted remotely operated triggers to shoot at captive animals. They may not go to the same extremes that the 2nd amendment objectors want, but they certainly allow for middle ground. Their mission is to protect the 2nd, they're not going to be in favor of things that lead to killing sprees if there's an agreeable way to minimize that risk without diminishing our right to bear arms.

I'm not sure whose legislative agenda you're talking about. I'm not aware that either org tells its supporters one thing and says something else to legislators. The legislators themselves pay lip service to these special interests just as they do with the public, the unions, etc.

If you knew anything about the NRA you'd know that they only promote responsible use of firearms. Yes, you can neckbeard that an oxymoron, but at least half the voting population here still believes there are very important reasons why the right to bear arms needs to exist.

As exemplified by gun free zones.

There are already treaties banning the use of land mines. This was one of Princess Diana's causes. Of course, that only applies to nations or groups that honor treaties or international laws, and would require other nations to enforce the restriction if violated.

Are you suggesting that they don't actually have asthma? A significant percentage of the population has asthma, it's not unexpected that a significant number of pro cyclists would have it as well.

It was an undocumented drone flying over a sanctuary city.