Camino LS6

Sounds good.

That's not politics, that's just journalism - something the "media" has forgotten how to do. Do it, set the record straight.

Not a tug, a baggage ramp I think. Sounds about right. The big question is, of course, why?

I don't know, it sounds like an industry story - perhaps that should trump the political aspect on a car forum.

Built from an airport tug?

At the rate you change vehicles, the mileage factor is sort of moot. Unless you really plan to make the next one a real long-termer.

Maybe when I'm done with it, we should have a Mothertruck-warming party. Counting the bedsides and tailgate, it should seat at least 20.

I have to like the 130, it is RWD and doesn't have headlights like a big sloppy mess of bling! Nice, tidy, little package.

No slight intended, Richard.

Thanks, Horse.

Things need not be so bleak. We just need to put our essential humanity ahead of an imagined hypothetical "ideal". And, not lose sight of that.

My comments are hardly paranoid, there is a pervasive school of thought that embraces the idea of increased population density as a strategy for mitigating environmental impact. This school of thought advocates having "all the essentials of life within a 5 minute walk", high population density, public transportation supplanting individual transportation, and so on. That I find these ideas repellent, hardly makes me paranoid..

Don't be absurd. It comes from "futurists" whose political stripe I don't know as it wasn't presented in the articles and shows I've seen on the topic. The notion is that it is a more environmentally-friendly way for humans to live. Maybe it is. But it would be a dehumanizing reality, one which I reject utterly.

Some of the more extreme collectivist thinkers extrapolate the use of autonomous cars to the elimination of private ownership, and the mandating of a central traffic control system. This is where the real danger is, it is an extreme vision of limited, and dependent, mobility. Such a system would restrict your movements to the well-worn paths of dense population centers which these folks also see as a good idea. To me, that sort of reality is death. The freedom to spend time away is something I cherish. A tight leash on how this technology impacts our society is essential, we must not sign up for such grandiose visions.

It's coming, dfelt, the question is will it be subordinate to us - or the other way around? Will it be a bloody fight, or will we be wise enough to let it happen as an owner-controlled option?

Believe me, I share those same concerns. But it doesn't have to be that way, and we don't have to fight the march of technology. That is, if those pushing the ideas give up the notion of forcing what would be a natural progression by the use of legal mandates. They, and we, need not go there.

I'll be back there in a few days, so hopefully it will still be there.

A bit beside the point. Any shift to autonomous cars will by necessity, be gradual. And these same folks you reference will have an expectation of safety which will demand co-existence with driven cars. No need for conflict, nor edicts from on high. The best changes happen organically.

OK, next time I'm there I'll get a shot or two. It really caught my eye.

Perhaps we all over-complicate this. Choose as you are impelled to choose, and don't judge others for doing the same. In short, don't be a dick about it.

I found that I had a lot more to say about driverless cars, but didn't want to hijack this thread. So I started a new one: http://www.cheersandgears.com/topic/80899-driverless-cars/#entry721066 Chime-in if you like.

It's an issue of approach and perspective.

Exactly what I was thinking, dfelt.

In that case, I wish you luck with the lottery! In any case, I'm not done with Mothertruck.

Thanks Roger, I sure hope so!