4 ms·

You won't be able to guarantee there are no cars around you without human drivers. Also, you might get prosecuted for reckless behavior. I don't get this whole

You won't be able to guarantee there are no cars around you without human drivers. Also, you might get prosecuted for reckless behavior. I don't get this whole argument. We needn't be so worried about a few others taking small advantages when the overall state will be better for us.

mannykannot 11y ago
> You won't be able to guarantee there are no cars around you without human drivers. Also, you might get prosecuted for reckless behavior. That is true now (and obviously more so in the first case), yet people still do it. If it wasn't being done, you could suggest that automation will not change the situation enough for people to start doing it, but as there already are people doing it, then that threshold has already been crossed, and it is implausible that it will not increase in frequency as the risk of doing it is decreased.
ethbro 11y ago
Not sure where you drive, but it must be a wonderful place. Here in Atlanta, the only rule during rush hour seems to be "What gets me to my destination quickest?" (And that's with us having what I consider fairly law-abiding drivers in comparison to some cities)
zardo 11y ago
>You won't be able to guarantee there are no cars around you without human drivers. By the time we have 99% market penetration of automated cars, we'll have had V2X standards for a decade or more. You probably would have a report of every vehicle nearby, but... At that point cars could just interleave at intersections, and the lights can just switch on when a human driven car shows up.
lotu 11y ago
The robotic cars have faster reflexes but they aren't magic. It is possible that the car will simply not physically be able to stop in time, imagine blind intersections with a large highway. Also you should recognize that right now most of the time people run red lights or stuff like that they don't crash. If they did we wouldn't need red light cameras.

mannykannot 11y ago

> You won't be able to guarantee there are no cars around you without human drivers. Also, you might get prosecuted for reckless behavior. That is true now (and obviously more so in the first case), yet people still do it. If it wasn't being done, you could suggest that automation will not change the situation enough for people to start doing it, but as there already are people doing it, then that threshold has already been crossed, and it is implausible that it will not increase in frequency as the risk of doing it is decreased.

ethbro 11y ago

Not sure where you drive, but it must be a wonderful place. Here in Atlanta, the only rule during rush hour seems to be "What gets me to my destination quickest?" (And that's with us having what I consider fairly law-abiding drivers in comparison to some cities)

zardo 11y ago

>You won't be able to guarantee there are no cars around you without human drivers. By the time we have 99% market penetration of automated cars, we'll have had V2X standards for a decade or more. You probably would have a report of every vehicle nearby, but... At that point cars could just interleave at intersections, and the lights can just switch on when a human driven car shows up.

lotu 11y ago

The robotic cars have faster reflexes but they aren't magic. It is possible that the car will simply not physically be able to stop in time, imagine blind intersections with a large highway. Also you should recognize that right now most of the time people run red lights or stuff like that they don't crash. If they did we wouldn't need red light cameras.