4 ms·

I like to think we're kinda amazing at it. The fact that a person can safely drive a car at 80mph while being completely relaxed in a wide range of conditions w

I like to think we're kinda amazing at it. The fact that a person can safely drive a car at 80mph while being completely relaxed in a wide range of conditions was really amazing to me as a kid. Accidents happen. Even chairs have their risks.

ceejayoz 10y ago
We kill 30k people a year in the US alone, largely through inattention, speeding, drunk/reckless driving, running lights, etc. All stuff a computer driver isn't likely to do. In 50 years, we'll be shocked humans were ever allowed to do it.
- spiderfarmer 10y ago
  To be fair, you can already improve that to 10k a year if you learned from European countries like The Netherlands. Better infrastructure, signaling, safety rules and training would help the US a lot. But sure, self driving cars might also be a solution. Who knows. It might certainly be a faster solution.
  - cr0sh 10y ago
    Yeah - we seem to hand out licenses like candy in some or most states here in the US. I'll be the first to say I'm not a great driver. I can and have driven long distances, but I always know I can do better. But all of our training here in the US to pass the test is mainly "ad-hoc". There isn't any kind of "certified training" program that you have to take and pass in order to then get a license. But there probably should be. Honestly, what there really needs to be is such a program, but done over the course of weeks at a facility like what is used at the Bondurant Racing School (https://bondurant.com/ https://bondurant.com/). Having that kind of knowledge and experience to really know your vehicle and its capabilities (both what it can and can't do, and how to handle an emergency) might go a long way toward making better drivers (now that I think of it, I might have to go to that school myself - assuming I can afford it). I think if we did do a better, stricter job at teaching drivers how to drive, and requiring it for a license, it would go a long way to cutting down on accidents. It wouldn't eliminate them, but it would surely reduce them, probably severely. Learning to keep control of emotions, and also handle stressful situations while driving would have to be a part of this as well. It wouldn't be a perfect solution, but it would probably be a damn sight better than what we currently do.
  - todd8 10y ago
    It's complicated. In the USA some states like South Carolina have higher rates of fatalities while others have fatalities per billion vehicle-km comparable to the best countries in Europe[1][2]: USA and territories 7.1 (includes Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico, etc.) USA, Massachusetts 3.25 Sweden 3.5 Netherlands 4.5 Belgium 7.3 Spain 7.8 Australia 5.2 Japan 8 S. Korea 16 Brazil 55.9 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate#List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U...
    - spiderfarmer 10y ago
      I think that if you compare by fatalities per km you should also take population density into account: 336 per km2 for Massachusetts vs. 501 per km2 in the Netherlands.

ceejayoz 10y ago

We kill 30k people a year in the US alone, largely through inattention, speeding, drunk/reckless driving, running lights, etc. All stuff a computer driver isn't likely to do. In 50 years, we'll be shocked humans were ever allowed to do it.

spiderfarmer 10y ago
To be fair, you can already improve that to 10k a year if you learned from European countries like The Netherlands. Better infrastructure, signaling, safety rules and training would help the US a lot. But sure, self driving cars might also be a solution. Who knows. It might certainly be a faster solution.
- cr0sh 10y ago
  Yeah - we seem to hand out licenses like candy in some or most states here in the US. I'll be the first to say I'm not a great driver. I can and have driven long distances, but I always know I can do better. But all of our training here in the US to pass the test is mainly "ad-hoc". There isn't any kind of "certified training" program that you have to take and pass in order to then get a license. But there probably should be. Honestly, what there really needs to be is such a program, but done over the course of weeks at a facility like what is used at the Bondurant Racing School (https://bondurant.com/ https://bondurant.com/). Having that kind of knowledge and experience to really know your vehicle and its capabilities (both what it can and can't do, and how to handle an emergency) might go a long way toward making better drivers (now that I think of it, I might have to go to that school myself - assuming I can afford it). I think if we did do a better, stricter job at teaching drivers how to drive, and requiring it for a license, it would go a long way to cutting down on accidents. It wouldn't eliminate them, but it would surely reduce them, probably severely. Learning to keep control of emotions, and also handle stressful situations while driving would have to be a part of this as well. It wouldn't be a perfect solution, but it would probably be a damn sight better than what we currently do.
- todd8 10y ago
  It's complicated. In the USA some states like South Carolina have higher rates of fatalities while others have fatalities per billion vehicle-km comparable to the best countries in Europe[1][2]: USA and territories 7.1 (includes Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico, etc.) USA, Massachusetts 3.25 Sweden 3.5 Netherlands 4.5 Belgium 7.3 Spain 7.8 Australia 5.2 Japan 8 S. Korea 16 Brazil 55.9 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate#List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U...
  - spiderfarmer 10y ago
    I think that if you compare by fatalities per km you should also take population density into account: 336 per km2 for Massachusetts vs. 501 per km2 in the Netherlands.