3 ms·

> replace an attentive driver It's unrealistic to assume that human drivers are attentive all the time. Autopilot never gets tired, never eats, never applies

by fdsaaf 10y ago

> replace an attentive driver It's unrealistic to assume that human drivers are attentive all the time. Autopilot never gets tired, never eats, never applies makeup, never sneezes, and never gets distracted by screaming children. You have to compare autopilot to realistic humans, not your platonic ideal of what a driver should be. I'm sick and tired of people making statements about road transit predicated on the idea that real humans pay attention to the road with 100% fidelity at all times.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
amalag 10y ago
I read it more closely and they do try to enforce that a driver has his hands on the wheel, etc. I am not convinced of the benefits though. I think something that enforces people to pay attention when driving is a better solution.
crpatino 10y ago
> It's unrealistic to assume that human drivers are attentive all the time... Yes, this is an unfortunate fact of life that human beings are no angels. However, most modern societies agree that reckless drivers are to be held accountable for their less than perfect behavior. If a police officer (or more recently, surveillance camera) catches you while DUI, or texting, or some other of the most blatant irresponsible behaviors, they will give you a big ticket. And if the consequences of your own idiocity happen to materialize you will suffer much sterner punishment (up to criminal charges for manslaughter, if it came down to that). That's assuming the infractor does survive. It is a known fact that a non trivial amount of people responsible for accidents end up loosing their lives (or those of loved ones) in the very tragedies they caused themselves. Death is the ultimate judge, and a merciless one at that. > You have to compare autopilot to realistic humans, not your platonic ideal of what a driver should be. Why? Neither the engineers who created those subpar systems - nor the executives who pushed for an unfeasible schedule, nor the shareholders that benefited from the whole deal, - will ever face the same consequences as described above. Corporations raison-d'etre is precisely to shield people engaging in economic activities from the unintended consequences of their actions; that's why they must be held to a higher standard than the everyman down the road. Would you imagine Tesla's Board of Directors having approved the green light for this impressive-yet-still-limited technology, if the company was required to pay for every traffic ticket that every Model S accrued while being in autopilot mode, nationwide? What about being accountable for every accident, no disclaimer licensing or such nonsense? > I'm sick and tired of people making statements about road transit predicated on the idea that real humans pay attention to the road with 100% fidelity at all times. People will make statements about road transit, because it is literally a life-or-death situation. Maybe you do prefer the cattle to shut up and die quietly, so your utopic techno-fantasies are never challenged?
- fdsaaf 10y ago
  I prefer to talk about real utilitarian tradeoffs instead of putting I imaginary, arbitrarily virtuous angels against computers. Every day you delay automation of automobile traffic is another batch of lives lost. Are you more interested in saving lives or in expressing the short sighted and sanctimonious outrage of a Luddite?
  - crpatino 10y ago
    Since when is caring about Engineering standards became Luddite? How many lives do you think autopilot is going to save if being as good as a sleep deprived teenager is good enough? And who benefits from that state of affairs? Anyways, you are a true beliver or a paid shill, so have a good night. EOM.
    - fdsaaf 10y ago
      > Since when is caring about Engineering standards became Luddite? Since you impose unrealistic standards on progress in an attempt to bolster your own moral position
sago 10y ago
It's also unrealistic to assume that an attentive driver would have avoided the crash. Driving at speed, you have to make assumptions that other people will do the right thing. You pass cars all the time. If you assume that the car might side-swipe you, you wouldn't get far, and you'd be a hazard yourself. You drive on undivided highways all the time without driving as if the oncoming car might cross in front of you. And so on. We have to assume that others are minimally competent. That's the point of road laws, not just to control you, but to let you assume things about others.

by fdsaaf 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

amalag 10y ago

I read it more closely and they do try to enforce that a driver has his hands on the wheel, etc. I am not convinced of the benefits though. I think something that enforces people to pay attention when driving is a better solution.

crpatino 10y ago

> It's unrealistic to assume that human drivers are attentive all the time... Yes, this is an unfortunate fact of life that human beings are no angels. However, most modern societies agree that reckless drivers are to be held accountable for their less than perfect behavior. If a police officer (or more recently, surveillance camera) catches you while DUI, or texting, or some other of the most blatant irresponsible behaviors, they will give you a big ticket. And if the consequences of your own idiocity happen to materialize you will suffer much sterner punishment (up to criminal charges for manslaughter, if it came down to that). That's assuming the infractor does survive. It is a known fact that a non trivial amount of people responsible for accidents end up loosing their lives (or those of loved ones) in the very tragedies they caused themselves. Death is the ultimate judge, and a merciless one at that. > You have to compare autopilot to realistic humans, not your platonic ideal of what a driver should be. Why? Neither the engineers who created those subpar systems - nor the executives who pushed for an unfeasible schedule, nor the shareholders that benefited from the whole deal, - will ever face the same consequences as described above. Corporations raison-d'etre is precisely to shield people engaging in economic activities from the unintended consequences of their actions; that's why they must be held to a higher standard than the everyman down the road. Would you imagine Tesla's Board of Directors having approved the green light for this impressive-yet-still-limited technology, if the company was required to pay for every traffic ticket that every Model S accrued while being in autopilot mode, nationwide? What about being accountable for every accident, no disclaimer licensing or such nonsense? > I'm sick and tired of people making statements about road transit predicated on the idea that real humans pay attention to the road with 100% fidelity at all times. People will make statements about road transit, because it is literally a life-or-death situation. Maybe you do prefer the cattle to shut up and die quietly, so your utopic techno-fantasies are never challenged?

fdsaaf 10y ago
I prefer to talk about real utilitarian tradeoffs instead of putting I imaginary, arbitrarily virtuous angels against computers. Every day you delay automation of automobile traffic is another batch of lives lost. Are you more interested in saving lives or in expressing the short sighted and sanctimonious outrage of a Luddite?
- crpatino 10y ago
  Since when is caring about Engineering standards became Luddite? How many lives do you think autopilot is going to save if being as good as a sleep deprived teenager is good enough? And who benefits from that state of affairs? Anyways, you are a true beliver or a paid shill, so have a good night. EOM.
  - fdsaaf 10y ago
    > Since when is caring about Engineering standards became Luddite? Since you impose unrealistic standards on progress in an attempt to bolster your own moral position

sago 10y ago

It's also unrealistic to assume that an attentive driver would have avoided the crash. Driving at speed, you have to make assumptions that other people will do the right thing. You pass cars all the time. If you assume that the car might side-swipe you, you wouldn't get far, and you'd be a hazard yourself. You drive on undivided highways all the time without driving as if the oncoming car might cross in front of you. And so on. We have to assume that others are minimally competent. That's the point of road laws, not just to control you, but to let you assume things about others.