3 ms·
A 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.
by 794CD01 10y ago
A 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.