4 ms·

You think it will be cheaper to pay for more taxis than it will be to have cars drive themselves? Let alone many drunk drivers would still drive themselves even

You think it will be cheaper to pay for more taxis than it will be to have cars drive themselves? Let alone many drunk drivers would still drive themselves even if a free taxi were available. > Are you really arguing that driving deaths are a major problem that requires intensive effort to solve? It's obvious to any observer that driving deaths are a major problem, and that an intensive effort to solve this problem is appropriate. We've made tremendous progress over that last 50 years. Let's continue that path.

astazangasta 11y ago
Yes, of course it will be cheaper to pay for taxis (not more taxis) for drunk people than it will be to have cars drive themselves. You're talking about converting the entire US car fleet, developing a non-existent technology, and refining it to the extreme (less than 2 deaths per 100 million miles traveled on average, which is the human driving record right now). It is MUCH, MUCH cheaper to implement a program where you make sure that drunk people leaving bars get into taxis. >It's obvious to any observer that driving deaths are a major problem, and that an intensive effort to solve this problem is appropriate. We've made tremendous progress over that last 50 years. Let's continue that path. This is disingenuous. Driverless cars are not part of an effort to reduce driving deaths, that's just how they're being sold. It's just as likely that driverless cars will increase driving deaths, until their safety record is refined over a period of many years and lots of testing (the same way it happened with humans). Driverless cars are being pursued because tech companies see an opportunity to use their machine learning expertise to turn driving into a commodity service that they control and can make billions off. It has nothing to do with driving safety, and if that were the goal (which, again, it is not, the goal is to make money by turning driving into a service and eliminate the cost of labor for drivers), there are a hundred cheaper ways to do it. If increasing driving safety were a goal that society actually cared about, Tracy Morgan would not have been hit by a truck.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  You're talking about converting the entire US car fleet... No one is talking about that. Poorly-driven vehicles will be with us for decades, because freedom. Everyone knows that.
  - astazangasta 11y ago
    Again, the implicit assumption that machines will automatically be better drivers than humans, because, magic. As we all know, all of the technology and computer systems we make work flawlessly and never miscommunicate, crash, or fail for any reason, unlike those damn meat puppets that operate them.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      Sure there will be problems. Regardless, the suggestion that "they're going to take your car away" is FUD. No one wants to do that. If a robocar can't handle a human driver in the next lane then it can't handle any number of other common and unpreventable factors.
    - brazzledazzle 11y ago
      There are certain things that computers are better at. The fastest reflexes in the world can't compete with a computer. A computer can't be distracted. A computer can be programmed to always drive safe distances, something almost no human does. A computer will never fail to check if a lane change is safe but you better believe humans do every day. Humans are quite capable and will always be able to handle things that computers can't in situations they're not designed for. At least until an AI is invented that is indistinguishable from a human mind. There will be mistakes and bugs (just as there are now in software made for cars). But believing that humans who drive while tired, eating cheeseburgers, playing with their phone, texting, not accounting for blind spots and tailgating others are going to be safer in the long run is bordering on religious faith in some kind of fantasy that humans are more than they are. No one is talking about replacing F1 drivers, we're talking about a sea of idiots that anyone who commutes every day with any awareness would recognize as being a major hazard. I'll take the patchable bugs over the psychos I see every day that put lives at risk with their self-centered hyper aggressive driving that relies on the attentiveness of everyone around them to prevent an accident. There is no software update for people like this–you either wait years for them to grow up or for them to kill someone.
  - moistgorilla 11y ago
    >Poorly-driven vehicles will be with us for decades, because freedom There is no right to drive like there is a right to own guns.
- jgreen10 11y ago
  Driverless car technology will be an economic development like cars and factories. In the long run, the economic opportunity it will create is far bigger than the cost.

astazangasta 11y ago

Yes, of course it will be cheaper to pay for taxis (not more taxis) for drunk people than it will be to have cars drive themselves. You're talking about converting the entire US car fleet, developing a non-existent technology, and refining it to the extreme (less than 2 deaths per 100 million miles traveled on average, which is the human driving record right now). It is MUCH, MUCH cheaper to implement a program where you make sure that drunk people leaving bars get into taxis. >It's obvious to any observer that driving deaths are a major problem, and that an intensive effort to solve this problem is appropriate. We've made tremendous progress over that last 50 years. Let's continue that path. This is disingenuous. Driverless cars are not part of an effort to reduce driving deaths, that's just how they're being sold. It's just as likely that driverless cars will increase driving deaths, until their safety record is refined over a period of many years and lots of testing (the same way it happened with humans). Driverless cars are being pursued because tech companies see an opportunity to use their machine learning expertise to turn driving into a commodity service that they control and can make billions off. It has nothing to do with driving safety, and if that were the goal (which, again, it is not, the goal is to make money by turning driving into a service and eliminate the cost of labor for drivers), there are a hundred cheaper ways to do it. If increasing driving safety were a goal that society actually cared about, Tracy Morgan would not have been hit by a truck.

jessaustin 11y ago
You're talking about converting the entire US car fleet... No one is talking about that. Poorly-driven vehicles will be with us for decades, because freedom. Everyone knows that.
- astazangasta 11y ago
  Again, the implicit assumption that machines will automatically be better drivers than humans, because, magic. As we all know, all of the technology and computer systems we make work flawlessly and never miscommunicate, crash, or fail for any reason, unlike those damn meat puppets that operate them.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Sure there will be problems. Regardless, the suggestion that "they're going to take your car away" is FUD. No one wants to do that. If a robocar can't handle a human driver in the next lane then it can't handle any number of other common and unpreventable factors.
  - brazzledazzle 11y ago
    There are certain things that computers are better at. The fastest reflexes in the world can't compete with a computer. A computer can't be distracted. A computer can be programmed to always drive safe distances, something almost no human does. A computer will never fail to check if a lane change is safe but you better believe humans do every day. Humans are quite capable and will always be able to handle things that computers can't in situations they're not designed for. At least until an AI is invented that is indistinguishable from a human mind. There will be mistakes and bugs (just as there are now in software made for cars). But believing that humans who drive while tired, eating cheeseburgers, playing with their phone, texting, not accounting for blind spots and tailgating others are going to be safer in the long run is bordering on religious faith in some kind of fantasy that humans are more than they are. No one is talking about replacing F1 drivers, we're talking about a sea of idiots that anyone who commutes every day with any awareness would recognize as being a major hazard. I'll take the patchable bugs over the psychos I see every day that put lives at risk with their self-centered hyper aggressive driving that relies on the attentiveness of everyone around them to prevent an accident. There is no software update for people like this–you either wait years for them to grow up or for them to kill someone.
- moistgorilla 11y ago
  >Poorly-driven vehicles will be with us for decades, because freedom There is no right to drive like there is a right to own guns.
jgreen10 11y ago
Driverless car technology will be an economic development like cars and factories. In the long run, the economic opportunity it will create is far bigger than the cost.