4 ms·
Well, If the thing you're proposing isn't better than the thing you're replacing, then such products should not succeed. A driverless car should be on par with
by ksk 9y ago
Well, If the thing you're proposing isn't better than the thing you're replacing, then such products should not succeed.
A driverless car should be on par with the _BEST_ human driver, not the average driver, who as we know, gets into 6 million auto accidents per year.
- baddox 9y agoHow’s that? Driverless cars just need to be better than the average human driver. I’d welcome reducing auto accidents by, say, 25%.
- isostatic 9y agoThe UK has 50% fewer deaths per mile than the US, so automated cars at 25% fewer in the US would be a bad thing in the UK
- baddox 9y agoI don’t understand your argument. Presumably the driverless cars would also reduce the UK’s deaths by a similar percentage.
- isostatic 9y agoYou suggested they could reduce the death rate from 7/bkm to 5/bkm. The uk is already at 3.5, if auto cars also changed that to 5/bkm that would be bad.
- ksk 9y agoI don't know about you but people like machines/robots predominantly because they are efficient and don't make mistakes. Nobody is going to trust a robot car to pickup their kids if you tell them there is a 25% less chance that the car might end up in an accident compared to what it would be if it were to be driven by an average driver. To your point, improving on the average doesn't require driverless cars at all. You ca get that today with just driver assistance technology, improving safety technology on roads, etc - all far easier problems to solve.