3 ms·
Society has a risk homeostasis, which partially compensates for improved safety by taking more risks. Seat belts and air bags both resulted (over generation tim
by tlb 10y ago
Society has a risk homeostasis, which partially compensates for improved safety by taking more risks. Seat belts and air bags both resulted (over generation time spans) in higher driving speeds. So the argument goes that eventually self-driving cars will drive faster and closer, and overall traffic deaths will remain constant.
The difference with self-driving cars is that the policies affecting risk (how fast, how close) will be decided by vehicle makers, who will be very risk-averse. Risk homeostasis is mainly driven by individuals thoughtlessly taking risks. But when enterprises make deliberate decisions, like they do in commercial air travel, safety can be improved indefinitely.
- saosebastiao 10y agoI'd agree that at least in this case the manufacturers of self driving cars would have the incentive to maintain buffers. They'd be on the hook for lawsuits. But they aren't the only players in the system. Traffic is a political problem, and how politicians react to traffic issues regularly becomes a campaign issue. I have no problem imagining a world where a politician campaigns on requiring self driving car manufacturers to standardize on rules that reduce traffic.
- Nomentatus 10y agoThat or the proliferation of ever larger numbers of large aircraft has kept us in the usual homeostatic situation, but with an ever-larger (growing) pool, so that the lives sacrificed in order to restore full attention to safety go much further, over many more aircraft. Only once you've hit max airliners can you judge whether homeostasis has been eluded. Until then, increasing safety is most likely just one more consequence of increased economic scale (and concomitant efficiency), rather an independent change. Same with the price of the tires.