4 ms·

If it’s true that algorithms are statistically better than drivers then we shouldn’t let people to drive." It is difficult to decide if this statement is ideal

If it’s true that algorithms are statistically better than drivers then we shouldn’t let people to drive." It is difficult to decide if this statement is idealistic, naive, or written by an algorithm. I love motorcycles, as do many millions of other people, despite the obvious safety risks. This may come as a shock, but minimizing risk isn't the sole goal of everyone's life on earth. By this logic, we shouldn't "let" people play sports because purpose built robots would be statistically better. But there are still a lot of people that love to drive. This can be a fun recreational activity but we just don’t need those people on the road. No, what we don't "need" are Autonomous Cars. We need food, water, and shelter. We want autonomous cars the same as any other modern technology. And by the way, marginalizing the interests of millions of people with language like "those people" typically does not go over well. And whom is "we"? Because it sounds like Rick's spaceship: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0PuqSMB8uU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0PuqSMB8uU (There is also a highly relevant Futurama episode that satirizes this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-D_Blacktop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-D_Blacktop.)

quacker 10y ago
> By this logic, we shouldn't "let" people play sports because purpose built robots would be statistically better. I don't think this is a fair comparison. There were about ~35000 motor vehicle deaths in 2015[1]. When we have the opportunity to reduce this number to (nearly) zero, the question becomes: is it worth paying 35000 lives to allow our society to satisfy its recreational driving needs? I think the answer is clearly, no. It is one thing for a person to risk their own life base jumping or rock climbing, for example. It is a different thing for others to risk my life (or vice versa) on my way home from work each day. There are plenty safe ways to accommodate demand for recreational driving in a world where humans driving cars is otherwise illegal. You can go to a track, or maybe certain roads could be available for human use, or maybe human driving is allowed only on certain days or hours. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
- theincredulousk 10y ago
  I was pointing out that the author's logic is hyperbolic and naive, making it seem as if statistically minimizing risk is the only thing that matters to anyone. To your point, we also "pay" ~88,000 lives per year to allow our society to satisfy its recreational alcohol consumption needs, but that is what society has chosen. I do agree it is a problem that we share roads, and many people don't take the risks seriously. People's poor judgement, e.g. using apps on their phone while going 70mph in a 3,000+ lb vehicle is disturbing. Motorcyclists experience things like this vividly, and often daily. Maybe fully automated cars are the only answer to that though, because relying on improving everyone's judgement, or policing it, might be the least realistic solution conceived (for anything). Of course we want to make driving safer, and in that way autonomous capabilities are a ground breaking safety feature. Other cars probably need to be safer too, since we are a very, very long way away from even a simple majority of autonomous cars. Maybe one day we'll see the "end game" of zero-ish road fatalities, but that relatively distant possibility is not a reason to essentially outlaw driving. Keep in mind autonomous cars are also very expensive, and will be for some time. If the "outlaw" part came a bit too early, it could end up looking a lot like "People too poor to buy and maintain a brand-new car are not allowed to drive on public roads". There are plenty more reasonable steps to be taken before that, e.g. since teenager drivers account for a disproportionate number of accidents/injuries, so maybe we don't need high-school kids driving. Or, maybe we need to require extra licensing for a housewife that wants to pilot a 5,500lb Escalade at highway speeds. Maybe people should go to jail instead of paying a tiny fine if they are caught using Social Media while driving. The list goes on, without copping to the naive, even juvenile, conclusion that outlawing human drivers is logical because autonomous cars are safer.
  - quacker 10y ago
    > To your point, we also "pay" ~88,000 lives per year to allow our society to satisfy its recreational alcohol consumption needs, but that is what society has chosen. This is a good contrasting point. I think there is an argument to be had about "winnable" battles, though. It's much easier to police roads than it is to police everyone's home for alcohol, for example. It's easier (I imagine) to smuggle some alcohol from another country than it is to import an illegal vehicle. (Aside: some ~10,000 of those alcohol related deaths involved drunk-driving) I agree that there needs to be a careful timeline for legislation. We shouldn't use legislation to bring about change too early. I do think, though, that the transition to autonomous vehicles could occur gradually. First, you make them capable of self-driving. Then, cars start being manufactured without a steering wheel or pedals. Then, all new cars must not have a steering wheel. Then, once a sufficiently high percentage of vehicles are autonomous and without steering wheels, additional legislation could be considered. This would take decades, of course. > There are plenty more reasonable steps to be taken before that... I'm aware that in countries other than the US (like Germany, IIRC), it is harder (in terms of additional and stricter testing) and more expensive to obtain your driver's license. That is something I don't disagree with. On the other hand, the US is a place which is very reliant on cars to get places: the country is larger and more spread out, public transportation is worse, etc. The ideal aspect of self-driving cars in combination with restricting or outlawing human drivers is people can still own them as they always have (prices will come down and used cars will exist) and it should bring down fatalities in a meaningful way. Additional legislation that may prevent people from getting the license they need to drive to their job would not be required. > The list goes on, without copping to the naive, even juvenile, conclusion that outlawing human drivers is logical because autonomous cars are safer. None of this rhetoric convinces me that it is not logical to remove human error from the driving equation.
perlgeek 10y ago
> I love motorcycles, as do many millions of other people, despite the obvious safety risks. Society as a whole could decide that the obvious safety risk has no place on public road, and if you want to drive motorcycles, you could do so on private property, and/or in places specifically designed/reserved for that. Same for manual driving of cars. That would be a big change, and it'll likely take decades until we get to such a point, or maybe we'll never get there. But I could very well imagine it happening.
- theincredulousk 10y ago
  Yes that's true, I can certainly imagine it as a possibility in the future. Specifically for motorcycles, as many experienced riders would say, sport bikes especially can hardly even be used on public roads anyways. My old bike red-lined 1st gear at ~96mph, i.e. there isn't a public road where it is legal to "use" the first of 6 gears. They're made for a track. On the other hand, RE: safety, in the overwhelming majority of cases the safety risk on a motorcycle is to the rider not the other drivers on the road. Motorcycle accidents where the rider was at fault and a vehicle occupant was killed are likely less probable than death via choking on a bagel. So a outlawing human drivers in this case sounds more like taking away an individual's choice rather than controlling any legitimate risk to public safety. As for cars, I agree that it will probably at some point make sense to separate autonomous cars from human drivers. There is not much way around the fact that you can kill other people easily in a car, and that a great number of people would justifiably want to opt-out of that risk if they had the option. Someone's enjoyment of driving won't be nearly enough to justify otherwise that when the time comes.

quacker 10y ago

> By this logic, we shouldn't "let" people play sports because purpose built robots would be statistically better. I don't think this is a fair comparison. There were about ~35000 motor vehicle deaths in 2015[1]. When we have the opportunity to reduce this number to (nearly) zero, the question becomes: is it worth paying 35000 lives to allow our society to satisfy its recreational driving needs? I think the answer is clearly, no. It is one thing for a person to risk their own life base jumping or rock climbing, for example. It is a different thing for others to risk my life (or vice versa) on my way home from work each day. There are plenty safe ways to accommodate demand for recreational driving in a world where humans driving cars is otherwise illegal. You can go to a track, or maybe certain roads could be available for human use, or maybe human driving is allowed only on certain days or hours. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...

theincredulousk 10y ago
I was pointing out that the author's logic is hyperbolic and naive, making it seem as if statistically minimizing risk is the only thing that matters to anyone. To your point, we also "pay" ~88,000 lives per year to allow our society to satisfy its recreational alcohol consumption needs, but that is what society has chosen. I do agree it is a problem that we share roads, and many people don't take the risks seriously. People's poor judgement, e.g. using apps on their phone while going 70mph in a 3,000+ lb vehicle is disturbing. Motorcyclists experience things like this vividly, and often daily. Maybe fully automated cars are the only answer to that though, because relying on improving everyone's judgement, or policing it, might be the least realistic solution conceived (for anything). Of course we want to make driving safer, and in that way autonomous capabilities are a ground breaking safety feature. Other cars probably need to be safer too, since we are a very, very long way away from even a simple majority of autonomous cars. Maybe one day we'll see the "end game" of zero-ish road fatalities, but that relatively distant possibility is not a reason to essentially outlaw driving. Keep in mind autonomous cars are also very expensive, and will be for some time. If the "outlaw" part came a bit too early, it could end up looking a lot like "People too poor to buy and maintain a brand-new car are not allowed to drive on public roads". There are plenty more reasonable steps to be taken before that, e.g. since teenager drivers account for a disproportionate number of accidents/injuries, so maybe we don't need high-school kids driving. Or, maybe we need to require extra licensing for a housewife that wants to pilot a 5,500lb Escalade at highway speeds. Maybe people should go to jail instead of paying a tiny fine if they are caught using Social Media while driving. The list goes on, without copping to the naive, even juvenile, conclusion that outlawing human drivers is logical because autonomous cars are safer.
- quacker 10y ago
  > To your point, we also "pay" ~88,000 lives per year to allow our society to satisfy its recreational alcohol consumption needs, but that is what society has chosen. This is a good contrasting point. I think there is an argument to be had about "winnable" battles, though. It's much easier to police roads than it is to police everyone's home for alcohol, for example. It's easier (I imagine) to smuggle some alcohol from another country than it is to import an illegal vehicle. (Aside: some ~10,000 of those alcohol related deaths involved drunk-driving) I agree that there needs to be a careful timeline for legislation. We shouldn't use legislation to bring about change too early. I do think, though, that the transition to autonomous vehicles could occur gradually. First, you make them capable of self-driving. Then, cars start being manufactured without a steering wheel or pedals. Then, all new cars must not have a steering wheel. Then, once a sufficiently high percentage of vehicles are autonomous and without steering wheels, additional legislation could be considered. This would take decades, of course. > There are plenty more reasonable steps to be taken before that... I'm aware that in countries other than the US (like Germany, IIRC), it is harder (in terms of additional and stricter testing) and more expensive to obtain your driver's license. That is something I don't disagree with. On the other hand, the US is a place which is very reliant on cars to get places: the country is larger and more spread out, public transportation is worse, etc. The ideal aspect of self-driving cars in combination with restricting or outlawing human drivers is people can still own them as they always have (prices will come down and used cars will exist) and it should bring down fatalities in a meaningful way. Additional legislation that may prevent people from getting the license they need to drive to their job would not be required. > The list goes on, without copping to the naive, even juvenile, conclusion that outlawing human drivers is logical because autonomous cars are safer. None of this rhetoric convinces me that it is not logical to remove human error from the driving equation.

perlgeek 10y ago

> I love motorcycles, as do many millions of other people, despite the obvious safety risks. Society as a whole could decide that the obvious safety risk has no place on public road, and if you want to drive motorcycles, you could do so on private property, and/or in places specifically designed/reserved for that. Same for manual driving of cars. That would be a big change, and it'll likely take decades until we get to such a point, or maybe we'll never get there. But I could very well imagine it happening.

theincredulousk 10y ago
Yes that's true, I can certainly imagine it as a possibility in the future. Specifically for motorcycles, as many experienced riders would say, sport bikes especially can hardly even be used on public roads anyways. My old bike red-lined 1st gear at ~96mph, i.e. there isn't a public road where it is legal to "use" the first of 6 gears. They're made for a track. On the other hand, RE: safety, in the overwhelming majority of cases the safety risk on a motorcycle is to the rider not the other drivers on the road. Motorcycle accidents where the rider was at fault and a vehicle occupant was killed are likely less probable than death via choking on a bagel. So a outlawing human drivers in this case sounds more like taking away an individual's choice rather than controlling any legitimate risk to public safety. As for cars, I agree that it will probably at some point make sense to separate autonomous cars from human drivers. There is not much way around the fact that you can kill other people easily in a car, and that a great number of people would justifiably want to opt-out of that risk if they had the option. Someone's enjoyment of driving won't be nearly enough to justify otherwise that when the time comes.