3 ms·
Summed up by the author's question "Would we really accept higher statistical safety, if that came with new risks and accident types that we could easily avoid
by seangrant 10y ago
Summed up by the author's question "Would we really accept higher statistical safety, if that came with new risks and accident types that we could easily avoid today?"
Who would say no to this?
- guptaneil 10y agoAnybody who fears the unknown, which is most people.
- placeybordeaux 10y agoIf you frame it entirely as safety most people will say that they want everyone else to use a driverless car, but they will keep on driving themselves, because everyone thinks they are a great driver. The reason why people will choose to use driverless cars will most likely be convenience, safety will just be a nice additional win.
- randyrand 10y agoAs an alternative you could just have automated braking, adjust steering, etc in critical situations.
- marcosdumay 10y agoLots of people don't fly because they are afraid of planes, for example. Expect people to be highly resistant to that change at the beginning.
- aetherson 10y agoHmm, you seem to believe that people who don't fly because they are afraid of plans are afraid of planes because they have a mistaken belief about the statistical safety of planes. My experience with people who are afraid of planes is that they know planes are safer than cars, but none the less feel a visceral, non-rational fear of the airplane that makes flying deeply uncomfortable for them. Kind of like how you might feel if you were covered in insects, even if you knew that the insects were non-venomous, non-disease carrying, and clean.