4 ms·
> the car would drive to the pickup location empty. It would seem full driverless with nobody in the car is the big deal here. It doesn't really matter is some
by efuquen 10y ago
> the car would drive to the pickup location empty.
It would seem full driverless with nobody in the car is the big deal here. It doesn't really matter is someone will be behind the wheel later, you already had the thing driving around with no human to intervene in case it does something crazy. Don't see how that's an intermediary step.
- 794CD01 10y agoA car driving around with no human inside poses less risk to human life than a car driving around with a human inside who is unable to control the car.
- ianlevesque 10y agoBut...the other drivers on the road?
- sbarre 10y agoYou are clearly not a pedestrian or cyclist in a major city.
- user5994461 10y agoI wouldn't be surprised if driverless cars were way more secure for pedestrians and cyclists. It's really difficult to keep track of pedestrians and cyclists when driving, whereas a driverless car has 360° nightvision.
- fiveoak 10y agoEventually, it might be. However just because the car has better sensors doesn't mean it will react better than a human would with less information.
- mentat 10y agoNo, but it also doesn't mean it won't react better. Are you presenting an argument here?
- fiveoak 10y agoSensor quality shouldn't be used to justify driverless cars being safer than a regular person driving a car. It's useless unless the car can actually use it to make a better decision than a human.
- user5994461 10y ago> a human would with less information. I'm arguing for the case where the human as NO information. Let's say, there's a bicycle/motorbike somewhat behind your cars. For a human driver, it can be seen in only one of the 3 rear mirrors at any point in time. Unless it's slightly behind-left or behind-right (e.g. to take over) in which case it's in the dead angle and can't be seen at all. By turning his head and using the mirrors, a human cannot see most of the 360° around a car. There are obstructed angles, not to mention that the human can only look toward one direction at once. The self driving cars with 360° vision can see things that a human couldn't. It has a chance to react where the human didn't.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- aetherson 10y agoThat's a carefully parsed statement -- less risk. True. But I don't think that we're cool with the idea that because the number of humans threatened by an accident is reduced by somewhere between 50 and 20%, it's okay for flagrantly unsafe cars to be on the road.