READ THE ARTICLE ON FUTURE CARS.
Post your comment on one of the following questions:
1. Why does Mr. O'Toole think driverless cars would be better for the environmnent, safer, and more fuel efficient than public transportation?
2. Would President Obama's proposed high speed rail system be a better or worse solution than driverless cars? Why or why not?
first
ReplyDelete1. Mr. O'Toole thinks driverless cars would be better because computer reaction times are faster and more fuel efficent and accidnets would be virtually eliminated.
ReplyDelete1.because people wont be behind the weel so less acsudents will happen.
ReplyDelete2. yes because he is all about going green and being safe on the road.
1. There would be no more crashes because of human failure and car would powerd by electricity
ReplyDelete2. No because you have more freedom and privacy in a car
1. Mr O'Toole thinks driveless cars would be better because computer react quicker than humans and there wouldnt be as many accidents.
ReplyDelete2. Yeah, hes going green :)
ReplyDeleteO'Toole said that even people who can't pass a drivers test would be able to ride in the drivers seat of the car. It would also be better because computer reactions are faster than the human reaction so there would be less accidents. The cars would also be more fuel efficent because the car would be powered by electricity.
ReplyDelete1. There wouldnt be crashes or pollution because the cars would be powered by electricity.
ReplyDelete2. Its a worse system because the rail stations could get very crowed and people would not want to use them.
Mr. O'Toole think driverless cars would be better for the enviroment because there wouldn't be as much traffic. They would be safer because the reaction time is quicker and more fuel efficient because the computer can pick the shortest distance of the route.
ReplyDeletedriverless cars would be safer because cars can't get distracted while driving and will be programed to drive at high speeds and not crash
ReplyDeleteMr. O'Toole thinks that driverless cars would be a better alternative because they would be greener, significantly reduce traffic congestion and reduce the risk of collision.
ReplyDelete1: Mr. O'Toole thinks that driverless cars are safer, because there is less or no human error, better for the enviroment, they would all but stop road contruction, and more fuel efficent because they travel at more consistent speeds.
ReplyDelete1. there wouldnt be crashes or pollution. also the cars could way less because they wont get into crashes
ReplyDelete2. yes because it is safe
ReplyDelete:)
ReplyDelete1. The driverless cars would be better for the environment because they eliminate congestion. They would be safer because they have good reaction times in accidents. Eventually, they will be more fuel efficient.
ReplyDelete1. Mr O'Toole thinks driverless cars would be more light weight and geener because they would not be as bulky.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the driverless cars would be a safer solution then obama's solutions. People could get where they need to go quicker and also wouldnt get distracted on the road.
ReplyDelete2. yes becasue it will be safer and more green
ReplyDelete1. Mr. O'Toole believes this because the cars will reduce congestion and the risk of collison will lower. Also, more people will choose to car-share.
ReplyDelete2. Obama's proposed high speed rail system will be a worse solution than driverless cars because it will cost nearly 1 trillion dollars and the people who will end up paying for it will barely use it.
2. Yes, driverless cars would be alot more wreckless I think. Obama's method seems safer.
ReplyDeletedriveless cars would be better for the enviorment because you wouldn't be stopping every now and agian but if there is a mistake in the system it would probaly be a big acciden
ReplyDelete1. I believe a high speed railway would be better than driver-less cars because many people would rather have a bit of control over their cars. At least with high speed rails there would be less of an outrage.
ReplyDelete1. because there would be less congestion, which would cause less pollution, and that would also reduce the need for road construction.
ReplyDelete2. driverless cars would be safer because there would be less risk of collision, and it would be safer for the environment.
THis will enable more cars to travel at high speeds while being very close to eachother with no accidents.
ReplyDeletei think driverless cars would be better because even though your giving up your controll we wont have to spend a ton of money to make a railroad thing across the country.
ReplyDelete1) He thinks they would be greener because they are supposed to elminate congestion. They're supposed to be safer also because computer reaction time is a lot faster than those of people, and they're more efficient becuase computer cars can run closer together without crashing, so more cars can be on the highway at once.
ReplyDeletemr otole thinks driverless cars would be better because you dont have to make the cars as big because you wont have to worry being in an acident. also you could be able to fit more cars on the highways.
ReplyDeleteMr.Otoole thinks that these would be more safe and green- it would eliminate traffic congestion, and pollution. This would be so cool if they came out with the whole system instead of cars and trucks. I love this idea.
ReplyDelete