8 ms·

Would you get into a self-driving car that you knew had fewer fatalities per mile than the overall human average, but more fatalities per mile than the average

Would you get into a self-driving car that you knew had fewer fatalities per mile than the overall human average, but more fatalities per mile than the average of non-drunk, non-sleepy human drivers below the age of 70 and above the age of 20 with more than 5 years of driving experience? Serious question.

rsync 10y ago
No, I would not. We, as a society, are about to learn some hard lessons about software. As in, deuteronomy-level lessons - things that will be (figuratively) carved into stone. We will gain a new appreciation for the value of human decision making.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  We will gain a new appreciation for the value of human decision making. A pretty big chunk of automobile collisions are directly attributable to poor human decision making. For example, nearly 1/3 of fatal collisions in the US involve a driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher.
  - Retric 10y ago
    That statistic includes drunk drivers who where not at fault. ed: And if using the NTSB numbers sober drivers with drunk passengers. PS: Drunk driving is stupid and dangerous, but poor statistics bother me. Drunk drivers are more often night time drivers adjusting for that closer to ~1/4.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      So only 1/4 of traffic fatalities are attributable to a single category of poor decisions. Oh boy. Do you have a good source that tracks fault in alcohol involved collisions? (I'm not trying to argue, I'm curious to look at it)
      - Retric 10y ago
        I don't want to defend driving while impaired in any way. Sadly, it's still really common to drive while impaired. 121 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year Just remember, even if you are sober, driving home from a party at 3AM is still significantly more dangerous than average.
        maxerickson 10y ago
        So 1/4 is just a seat of the pants estimate? I sloppily implied causation above, but I didn't actually say 1/3 of crashes are attributable to alcohol, I said that a "big chunk" are attributable to poor decisions and separately pointed out the large percentage of fatal crashes involving alcohol.
        Retric 10y ago
        Sure, this is a spin heavy subject which is why the term is related. People want to fix a major problem and IMO go overboard when the underlying problem needs no exaggeration. Anyway, 1/4 is from someone with access to raw data who spent some time trying to get less biased numbers. So, wider error bars than NTSB estimates, but less biased assumptions. Drunk driving is still a major issue, but there is a reason people are still spouting 20 year old data. When trying to make a point there is a tendency to cherry pick to the point of distortion.
    - Nadya 10y ago
      "Not at fault" is also not equivalent to "could not have prevented the accident". For example - I was nearly rear ended by another driver, but I noticed they were failing to brake and pulled into an oncoming traffic lane (after checking there was no oncoming traffic of course). I would not have been at fault but also managed to avoid the accident altogether. Also just because you aren't "legally" at fault doesn't necessarily mean the accident wasn't a result of poor judgement on your behalf. For example, slamming on one's brakes noticing you're about to miss a turn you need to take and you get rear ended. You won't be legally found "at fault" but the accident is largely "your fault" for unpredictable driving, slamming on your brakes, and having been so inattentive to have nearly missed your turn.
      - aetherson 10y ago
        This is true, but keep in mind when you look at the safety measures of driverless cars that they're likely being judged via these same, flawed metrics. Google's driverless cars have been in a lot of accidents! Yes, most of them have been "not the fault of the software," but the same caveats you just described apply to the software as well. So I think we're at least comparing apples to apples.
    - grzm 10y ago
      That statistic includes drunk drivers who where not at fault. Would you elaborate on this? I read this as meaning that the statistic includes drunk drivers who were involved in a fatal accident but weren't determined to be at fault for causing the accident. Am I understanding your intent correctly? Assuming this to be the case, I agree that there should be some additional nuance here. That said, it would also need to take into account whether or not their inebriation prevented them from acting defensively to avoid the accident. I'm not sure how this would be done.
      - Retric 10y ago
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: "NHTSA defines fatal collisions as "alcohol-related" if they believe the driver, a passenger, or non-motorist (such as a pedestrian or pedal cyclist) had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.01% or greater." "NHTSA specifically notes that alcohol-related does not necessarily mean a driver or non-occupant was tested for alcohol and that the term does not indicate a collision or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_St... Also of note: "On average, about 60% of the BAC values are missing or unknown. To analyze what they believe is the complete data, statisticians simulate BAC information.[7] Drivers with a BAC of 0.10% are 6 to 12 times more likely to get into a fatal crash or injury than drivers with no alcohol."
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      I used the numbers that Google Search stuck in an infobox. (According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 35,092 people died in traffic crashes in 2015 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,265 people who were killed in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). Among the people killed in these drunk driving crashes, 67% (6,865) were in crashes in which at least one driver in the crash had a BAC of .15 or higher. From https://responsibility.org/get-the-facts/research/statistics/drunk-driving-fatalities/ https://responsibility.org/get-the-facts/research/statistics... So unless they are gravely misrepresenting the numbers, it's 29% of fatalities involving a driver with an illegal BAC. (again not trying to argue, I'm sure there are fatalities involving alcohol that are not attributable to the impairment, just adding clarification about where my statement came from).
      - Retric 10y ago
        First, I love that HN is a place where we get that kind of clarification so Thank You. Anyway, to be pedantic 29.0% is closer to 25.0% -4% than 33.3% + 4.3%. But, it's also 'close to' 1/4, so I don't have an issue with your phrasing. However, as you note this is 'involving' a drunk driver. So, that 29% is inflated by cases where the sober driver struck a drunk one. </ done beating a decaying equine.>
  - rsync 10y ago
    "For example, nearly 1/3 of fatal collisions in the US involve a driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher." This is a flawed comparison because failing to update your software or keep your tires inflated or clean off your sensors would also be human decisions that could lead to adverse outcomes with self-driving cars. Non-driving-operation decisions like that are applicable to both regular and self-driving cars.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Driving while impaired is not a non-driving-operation decision. It's an ongoing driving decision. The driver is poorly assessing their ability to safely complete upcoming operations. Over and over. I also expect that automatic systems will greatly improve the level of maintenance of vehicles (for example, mandatory tire pressure monitoring already does...).
    - Gargoyle 10y ago
      >This is a flawed comparison because failing to update your software or keep your tires inflated or clean off your sensors would also be human decisions that could lead to adverse outcomes with self-driving cars. It's incredibly simple to remove humans from those decisions. Just have the self-driving code refuse to engage until the issue is resolved.
      - sib 10y ago
        And then Grandma dies of her heart attack because you can't rush her to the hospital because one tire is 3psi underinflated? Most of these issues aren't binary.
        maxerickson 10y ago
        Call 911. Calling an ambulance is currently the recommended thing to do in severe medical emergencies anyway. For other concerns about availability, adjust maintenance inspections and routines as necessary. For example, if you live somewhere there is no ambulance service and someone is of uncertain health, maybe inspect the tires every day (this sounds tedious but look at the alternative you are proposing, having a tire blow out while delivering dying Grandma to the ER).
- hx87 10y ago
  > As in, deuteronomy-level lessons - things that will be (figuratively) carved into stone. Bad example--the majority of the lessons in Deuteronomy are shit, especially in a modern society, and were almost never taken literally through most of their history.
Retric 10y ago
Yes, that would be better than I was when sleepy making it a net safety gain when driving home late. As an added bonus I can turn it on in a traffic jam and relax as that's stressful but not fast enough to be dangerous.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Eridrus 10y ago
What's the price and safety delta? Btw, what is the death/accident rates for non-drunk people? Including accudents from drunk drivers crashing into them.
JamesBarney 10y ago
Yes. Lets assume a. 1 fatality per 100 million miles driven as an average driver[0] b. .5 fatalities per 100 million miles driven as robo driver c. .25 fatalities per 100 million miles driven as 20-70 sober well rested driver I'm 31yr old male so I have an average life expectancy of 47 more years. That means I lose about .5/100 million * 47 yrs * 365days * 24hrs * 60mins * 60s = 7.4 seconds life lost per mile in robo-car. Sober/well-rested that drops to 3.7 seconds of life lost per mile. So I'd be giving up 3.7 seconds of life to be able to read/work/sleep instead of drive for every mile. For me this is a good deal @ high speeds(trade 3.7 seconds of life for a minute of time), and an absolute steal at lower speeds(usual commute averages 4 minutes/mile.) [0]https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
- aetherson 10y ago
  This is a well-reasoned answer, but probably not the same trade-off that most people would make. For example, if a car was twice as bad as the average driver (2 fatalities per 100 million miles), then you'd say 29.6 seconds per mile -- maybe something you wouldn't do at freeway speeds, but you would do at city street speeds. But I don't think that most people would get into a car that was twice as likely to crash as an average human driver (including drunks and so forth). Which suggests that most people have a different approach to this question.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    The average movement speed of a car over a trip is ~22 mph anyway. The gains from coordinated robotic driving could very well be enough to actually reduce speed limits by a significant value, which not only reduces overall fatalities (due to laws of physics), but also makes the equation better for the robotic cars, which might convince more people to switch, leading to a positive feedback loop. That's an optimistic scenario, though.
  - hx87 10y ago
    I would if the drive were limited to city streets, since a crash there has a much lower probability of injury and death compared to a highway.
random_upvoter 10y ago
When a piece of software crashes out of its model space, it becomes infinitely stupid. A drunk driver, while impaired, retains a level of understanding of the situation but a program has nothing to fall back on. I suspect that accidents with automated driving, while rare, will tend to be more severe. Think train wrecks.
- CPLX 10y ago
  > When a piece of software crashes out of its model space, it becomes infinitely stupid. Well said.
- ghaff 10y ago
  The liability situation at scale will also be "interesting." With the exception of pharmaceutical side-effects (which, in the case of vaccines are even explicitly dealt with through the government), it's hard to think of another consumer product, properly maintained and operated, where faults randomly kill people because "stuff happens" without consequences. GM didn't get to play the engineering is complicated and there are always tradeoffs card with its ignition switches. (And, yes, I know this was a case of a known problem but product defects still usually trigger liability in any case.)
- stale2002 10y ago
  Not really. If something goes wrong, 99.9% of the time, the solution is to slam on the brakes, and maybe swerve a little to avoid an immediate obstacle. If a self driving car only does this, it will be a way better driver than a human. Talking about weird edge cases misses the point. Edge case = slam on the brakes.
  - random_upvoter 10y ago
    You assume that the program will recognize the edge cases. But will it recognize the edge cases of recognizing the edge cases?
  - galdosdi 10y ago
    Really? So easy to think of scenarios where there _is_ no safe answer. For example, what if it's dense fast traffic (say, one car space between each car, 50mph) in random black ice conditions and sensors suddenly begin failing so the software no longer trusts is inputs? Based on recent good inputs, accelerating, swerving, or breaking are all dangerous, and based on the loss of "vision" continuing at current speed is dangerous. The safest thing to do might be to begin honking, flashing hazards, and slowing down very slowly, but could still be way riskier than just handing control to a human driver who (in this scenario) can still see. I can think of tons of similar situations. I have a feeling a lot of folks who think it'll be so easy are people who have mainly experience driving in easy areas and conditions. EDIT: I could have easily made the scenario way worse: the road is curvy, or random lanes are closing and reopening due to construction. Loss of visibility then means continuing straight has a high chance of causing a serious wreck quickly rather than maybe eventually
figers 10y ago
Self driving car can avert accidents caused by drunk / sleepy drivers a human wouldn't react to in time. There are videos of Tesla's automatically avoiding many dangerous situations and those cars are the very first of the first self driving cars to come...
notheguyouthink 10y ago
I think in that example, i would move the bar to exactly what you cited. I think there's an implicit understanding in the OPs statement that means "better than average competent humans". Although, another way to look at is: If you fall below the bar for the average human, including drunks/etc, aren't you by definition more safe using this AI system? If your question/argument is: What about those who are safer than average - then i think the answer is, they shouldn't use self driving, only the "poor" drivers should. Of course the next question is how do you determine that. Perhaps infractions on your driving record would inhibit you from driving. If you get caught for drunk driving, that's it, no more license, purely automated driving (even if that means no rain driving, etc). If you're above 70, or etc.
nsgi 10y ago
Would you get into a car with a driver under 20, above 70, with less than five years of driving experience or who is a little sleepy?
stale2002 10y ago
Do you use Taxis? How do you know that they aren't sleepy/inexperienced/a bad driver?

rsync 10y ago

No, I would not. We, as a society, are about to learn some hard lessons about software. As in, deuteronomy-level lessons - things that will be (figuratively) carved into stone. We will gain a new appreciation for the value of human decision making.

maxerickson 10y ago
We will gain a new appreciation for the value of human decision making. A pretty big chunk of automobile collisions are directly attributable to poor human decision making. For example, nearly 1/3 of fatal collisions in the US involve a driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher.
- Retric 10y ago
  That statistic includes drunk drivers who where not at fault. ed: And if using the NTSB numbers sober drivers with drunk passengers. PS: Drunk driving is stupid and dangerous, but poor statistics bother me. Drunk drivers are more often night time drivers adjusting for that closer to ~1/4.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    So only 1/4 of traffic fatalities are attributable to a single category of poor decisions. Oh boy. Do you have a good source that tracks fault in alcohol involved collisions? (I'm not trying to argue, I'm curious to look at it)
    - Retric 10y ago
      I don't want to defend driving while impaired in any way. Sadly, it's still really common to drive while impaired. 121 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year Just remember, even if you are sober, driving home from a party at 3AM is still significantly more dangerous than average.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        So 1/4 is just a seat of the pants estimate? I sloppily implied causation above, but I didn't actually say 1/3 of crashes are attributable to alcohol, I said that a "big chunk" are attributable to poor decisions and separately pointed out the large percentage of fatal crashes involving alcohol.
        Retric 10y ago
        Sure, this is a spin heavy subject which is why the term is related. People want to fix a major problem and IMO go overboard when the underlying problem needs no exaggeration. Anyway, 1/4 is from someone with access to raw data who spent some time trying to get less biased numbers. So, wider error bars than NTSB estimates, but less biased assumptions. Drunk driving is still a major issue, but there is a reason people are still spouting 20 year old data. When trying to make a point there is a tendency to cherry pick to the point of distortion.
  - Nadya 10y ago
    "Not at fault" is also not equivalent to "could not have prevented the accident". For example - I was nearly rear ended by another driver, but I noticed they were failing to brake and pulled into an oncoming traffic lane (after checking there was no oncoming traffic of course). I would not have been at fault but also managed to avoid the accident altogether. Also just because you aren't "legally" at fault doesn't necessarily mean the accident wasn't a result of poor judgement on your behalf. For example, slamming on one's brakes noticing you're about to miss a turn you need to take and you get rear ended. You won't be legally found "at fault" but the accident is largely "your fault" for unpredictable driving, slamming on your brakes, and having been so inattentive to have nearly missed your turn.
    - aetherson 10y ago
      This is true, but keep in mind when you look at the safety measures of driverless cars that they're likely being judged via these same, flawed metrics. Google's driverless cars have been in a lot of accidents! Yes, most of them have been "not the fault of the software," but the same caveats you just described apply to the software as well. So I think we're at least comparing apples to apples.
  - grzm 10y ago
    That statistic includes drunk drivers who where not at fault. Would you elaborate on this? I read this as meaning that the statistic includes drunk drivers who were involved in a fatal accident but weren't determined to be at fault for causing the accident. Am I understanding your intent correctly? Assuming this to be the case, I agree that there should be some additional nuance here. That said, it would also need to take into account whether or not their inebriation prevented them from acting defensively to avoid the accident. I'm not sure how this would be done.
    - Retric 10y ago
      National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: "NHTSA defines fatal collisions as "alcohol-related" if they believe the driver, a passenger, or non-motorist (such as a pedestrian or pedal cyclist) had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.01% or greater." "NHTSA specifically notes that alcohol-related does not necessarily mean a driver or non-occupant was tested for alcohol and that the term does not indicate a collision or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_St... Also of note: "On average, about 60% of the BAC values are missing or unknown. To analyze what they believe is the complete data, statisticians simulate BAC information.[7] Drivers with a BAC of 0.10% are 6 to 12 times more likely to get into a fatal crash or injury than drivers with no alcohol."
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    I used the numbers that Google Search stuck in an infobox. (According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 35,092 people died in traffic crashes in 2015 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,265 people who were killed in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). Among the people killed in these drunk driving crashes, 67% (6,865) were in crashes in which at least one driver in the crash had a BAC of .15 or higher. From https://responsibility.org/get-the-facts/research/statistics/drunk-driving-fatalities/ https://responsibility.org/get-the-facts/research/statistics... So unless they are gravely misrepresenting the numbers, it's 29% of fatalities involving a driver with an illegal BAC. (again not trying to argue, I'm sure there are fatalities involving alcohol that are not attributable to the impairment, just adding clarification about where my statement came from).
    - Retric 10y ago
      First, I love that HN is a place where we get that kind of clarification so Thank You. Anyway, to be pedantic 29.0% is closer to 25.0% -4% than 33.3% + 4.3%. But, it's also 'close to' 1/4, so I don't have an issue with your phrasing. However, as you note this is 'involving' a drunk driver. So, that 29% is inflated by cases where the sober driver struck a drunk one. </ done beating a decaying equine.>
- rsync 10y ago
  "For example, nearly 1/3 of fatal collisions in the US involve a driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher." This is a flawed comparison because failing to update your software or keep your tires inflated or clean off your sensors would also be human decisions that could lead to adverse outcomes with self-driving cars. Non-driving-operation decisions like that are applicable to both regular and self-driving cars.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Driving while impaired is not a non-driving-operation decision. It's an ongoing driving decision. The driver is poorly assessing their ability to safely complete upcoming operations. Over and over. I also expect that automatic systems will greatly improve the level of maintenance of vehicles (for example, mandatory tire pressure monitoring already does...).
  - Gargoyle 10y ago
    >This is a flawed comparison because failing to update your software or keep your tires inflated or clean off your sensors would also be human decisions that could lead to adverse outcomes with self-driving cars. It's incredibly simple to remove humans from those decisions. Just have the self-driving code refuse to engage until the issue is resolved.
    - sib 10y ago
      And then Grandma dies of her heart attack because you can't rush her to the hospital because one tire is 3psi underinflated? Most of these issues aren't binary.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Call 911. Calling an ambulance is currently the recommended thing to do in severe medical emergencies anyway. For other concerns about availability, adjust maintenance inspections and routines as necessary. For example, if you live somewhere there is no ambulance service and someone is of uncertain health, maybe inspect the tires every day (this sounds tedious but look at the alternative you are proposing, having a tire blow out while delivering dying Grandma to the ER).
hx87 10y ago
> As in, deuteronomy-level lessons - things that will be (figuratively) carved into stone. Bad example--the majority of the lessons in Deuteronomy are shit, especially in a modern society, and were almost never taken literally through most of their history.

Retric 10y ago

Yes, that would be better than I was when sleepy making it a net safety gain when driving home late. As an added bonus I can turn it on in a traffic jam and relax as that's stressful but not fast enough to be dangerous.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Eridrus 10y ago

What's the price and safety delta? Btw, what is the death/accident rates for non-drunk people? Including accudents from drunk drivers crashing into them.

JamesBarney 10y ago

Yes. Lets assume a. 1 fatality per 100 million miles driven as an average driver[0] b. .5 fatalities per 100 million miles driven as robo driver c. .25 fatalities per 100 million miles driven as 20-70 sober well rested driver I'm 31yr old male so I have an average life expectancy of 47 more years. That means I lose about .5/100 million * 47 yrs * 365days * 24hrs * 60mins * 60s = 7.4 seconds life lost per mile in robo-car. Sober/well-rested that drops to 3.7 seconds of life lost per mile. So I'd be giving up 3.7 seconds of life to be able to read/work/sleep instead of drive for every mile. For me this is a good deal @ high speeds(trade 3.7 seconds of life for a minute of time), and an absolute steal at lower speeds(usual commute averages 4 minutes/mile.) [0]https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

aetherson 10y ago
This is a well-reasoned answer, but probably not the same trade-off that most people would make. For example, if a car was twice as bad as the average driver (2 fatalities per 100 million miles), then you'd say 29.6 seconds per mile -- maybe something you wouldn't do at freeway speeds, but you would do at city street speeds. But I don't think that most people would get into a car that was twice as likely to crash as an average human driver (including drunks and so forth). Which suggests that most people have a different approach to this question.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  The average movement speed of a car over a trip is ~22 mph anyway. The gains from coordinated robotic driving could very well be enough to actually reduce speed limits by a significant value, which not only reduces overall fatalities (due to laws of physics), but also makes the equation better for the robotic cars, which might convince more people to switch, leading to a positive feedback loop. That's an optimistic scenario, though.
- hx87 10y ago
  I would if the drive were limited to city streets, since a crash there has a much lower probability of injury and death compared to a highway.

random_upvoter 10y ago

When a piece of software crashes out of its model space, it becomes infinitely stupid. A drunk driver, while impaired, retains a level of understanding of the situation but a program has nothing to fall back on. I suspect that accidents with automated driving, while rare, will tend to be more severe. Think train wrecks.

CPLX 10y ago
> When a piece of software crashes out of its model space, it becomes infinitely stupid. Well said.
ghaff 10y ago
The liability situation at scale will also be "interesting." With the exception of pharmaceutical side-effects (which, in the case of vaccines are even explicitly dealt with through the government), it's hard to think of another consumer product, properly maintained and operated, where faults randomly kill people because "stuff happens" without consequences. GM didn't get to play the engineering is complicated and there are always tradeoffs card with its ignition switches. (And, yes, I know this was a case of a known problem but product defects still usually trigger liability in any case.)
stale2002 10y ago
Not really. If something goes wrong, 99.9% of the time, the solution is to slam on the brakes, and maybe swerve a little to avoid an immediate obstacle. If a self driving car only does this, it will be a way better driver than a human. Talking about weird edge cases misses the point. Edge case = slam on the brakes.
- random_upvoter 10y ago
  You assume that the program will recognize the edge cases. But will it recognize the edge cases of recognizing the edge cases?
- galdosdi 10y ago
  Really? So easy to think of scenarios where there _is_ no safe answer. For example, what if it's dense fast traffic (say, one car space between each car, 50mph) in random black ice conditions and sensors suddenly begin failing so the software no longer trusts is inputs? Based on recent good inputs, accelerating, swerving, or breaking are all dangerous, and based on the loss of "vision" continuing at current speed is dangerous. The safest thing to do might be to begin honking, flashing hazards, and slowing down very slowly, but could still be way riskier than just handing control to a human driver who (in this scenario) can still see. I can think of tons of similar situations. I have a feeling a lot of folks who think it'll be so easy are people who have mainly experience driving in easy areas and conditions. EDIT: I could have easily made the scenario way worse: the road is curvy, or random lanes are closing and reopening due to construction. Loss of visibility then means continuing straight has a high chance of causing a serious wreck quickly rather than maybe eventually

figers 10y ago

Self driving car can avert accidents caused by drunk / sleepy drivers a human wouldn't react to in time. There are videos of Tesla's automatically avoiding many dangerous situations and those cars are the very first of the first self driving cars to come...

notheguyouthink 10y ago

I think in that example, i would move the bar to exactly what you cited. I think there's an implicit understanding in the OPs statement that means "better than average competent humans". Although, another way to look at is: If you fall below the bar for the average human, including drunks/etc, aren't you by definition more safe using this AI system? If your question/argument is: What about those who are safer than average - then i think the answer is, they shouldn't use self driving, only the "poor" drivers should. Of course the next question is how do you determine that. Perhaps infractions on your driving record would inhibit you from driving. If you get caught for drunk driving, that's it, no more license, purely automated driving (even if that means no rain driving, etc). If you're above 70, or etc.

nsgi 10y ago

Would you get into a car with a driver under 20, above 70, with less than five years of driving experience or who is a little sleepy?

stale2002 10y ago

Do you use Taxis? How do you know that they aren't sleepy/inexperienced/a bad driver?