4 ms·

Someone died. There is no way to truly privatize that externality. Money won't bring the woman back.

megy 9y ago
Do you drive? How can you drive and not be aware of the 40,000 deaths a year in the US, and pretend you aren't part of that system.
- zaptheimpaler 9y ago
  Do you program? How can you program and not be aware of the X deaths, Y privacy violations and pretend you aren't part of that system? Is every programmer in the world partly responsible for every death caused by every programming bug ever? Should we blame all civic engineers every time a bridge collapses? I am an individual, not "part of a system". Simply being a driver doesn't make me a reckless or dangerous one. For example, 10K of those deaths involve DUI, and I am certainly not part of that system. I'm sure 95% of drivers never kill anyone.
  - themarkn 9y ago
    >I am an individual, not "part of a system". Simply being a driver doesn't make me a reckless or dangerous one. For example, 10K of those deaths involve DUI, and I am certainly not part of that system. I'm sure 95% of drivers never kill anyone. Massive misunderstanding. As a driver your actions form a part of the traffic around you, even responsible drivers are "attached" to the system and put pressure on it. Maybe one day somebody rear ends you and you are knocked forward into a crosswalk, or you break suddenly to avoid hitting a pedestrian and cause an accident behind you. Or maybe your very safe driving leaves enough room for somebody to take a foolish risk cutting in front of you and lose control of their car. Collectively society accepts that getting places quickly is worth the cost that we pay in human lives. And each road user agrees to the small risk of death/injury beyond their control in order to get somewhere.
  - 11thEarlOfMar 9y ago
    I'd guess that in the US, at least, 99.2% of drivers never kill anyone while driving (including themselves). (back of the envelop, assuming 300,000,000 drivers driving for 60 years of their lives at a 40,000 per year death rate)
  - squiggleblaz 9y ago
    It's almost impossible to drive a car without threatening small children and other people with lethal force. People regularly wait on the sides of roads when every traditional custom, convention and current law demands that car drivers stop, but they never do it. "I want to get to the shops quicker" is not an excuse for levelling a gun at someone and asking them to please step aside. Moreover, it is illegal to drive a car safely. If you try it, you will be pulled over. You may be fined or lose your licence. Try it and see. So yes, being a car driver does make you a dangerous one.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      Unless you define what you mean by "drive a car safely" I don't see how one can even begin to evaluate that claim meaningfully.
- incompatible 9y ago
  Perhaps the same standard should be applied to human drivers: if a human makes a mistake and kills somebody, the rest should be taken off the road for retraining. I wonder how the issue developed when the automobile was first introduced. I remember something about needing to have a guy walking in front of the vehicle waving a warning flag, but apparently that didn't last long. Found it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    It seems like a faulty analogy, unless you want to tell me that every Uber car is running unique software.
    - incompatible 9y ago
      Yeah, possibly. On one hand, the Uber setup should be examined for flaws. On the other hand, we shouldn't get paranoid about the occasional traffic death when we've already decided (for human drivers) that this is acceptable collateral damage in the transport system.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        The entire pitch for autonomous driving is that it's safer than human drivers. If that's false it's not clear why we should continue to allow Uber to test their work on public roads.
        incompatible 9y ago
        It could be safer than human drivers and still cause quite a few deaths. We can't evaluate such statistics from one accident. We don't even know if this particular accident would have been avoided by a typical human driver (there was apparently one behind the wheel of the vehicle).
        9y ago
- kazinator 9y ago
  Not a meaningful counterargument here. Someone can not only drive, but have a history of having been an at-fault driver causing death, yet justifiably not believe that: public roads should be used for private testing such that the profit is private, but the harm is socialized; or that money compensates for lost lives.
azernik 9y ago
And yet, people and companies undertake activities all the time that involve risks to life, and we do indeed attach a monetary value when those lives are harmed. Or, alternatively, we do indeed have a cap to the amount of resources we are willing to expend to save a life - lives are not of infinite value.
- libre-man 9y ago
  Wat a completely terrible thing to say. This isn't about saving a life, this is about not killing somebody. Just because a company like Uber thinks it can make a lot of money doen't mean it can simply take risks like these.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    Every time you are selling food you take the risk of killing people if something goes wrong. And what about carrying people in planes. These risks are taken continuously, for profit. How is that different?
    - libre-man 9y ago
      We wouldn't except it if people got killed by selling them poisoned food, at least not where I'm from. Plane crashes are investigated and licenses are suspended and blacklists are kept, furthermore software is tested and verified before it is used in production. We shouldn't except excessive risks, see regulations with truck and bus drivers, just because a profit can be made.
      - cm2187 9y ago
        But what makes you think Uber didn't test their software? When Boeing introduces carbon fuselage it is taking risks with people's life. They do reasonable testing but a technology isn't proven until it has been widely used for a long time. No risk = no innovation.
        9y ago
anon12345690 9y ago
We get it, its sad and money isnt everything, but the world cant stop because of a single death. If there is legal liability here then itll be handled.
- zaptheimpaler 9y ago
  The world doesn't have to stop, just testing self-driving cars live on public roads with very little evidence that the tech is ready.
  - andromeduck 9y ago
    More evidence than human drivers, the same human drivers who are legally responsible/liable for this incident.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  This attitude went great for Ford with the Pinto, as I recall.

megy 9y ago

Do you drive? How can you drive and not be aware of the 40,000 deaths a year in the US, and pretend you aren't part of that system.

zaptheimpaler 9y ago
Do you program? How can you program and not be aware of the X deaths, Y privacy violations and pretend you aren't part of that system? Is every programmer in the world partly responsible for every death caused by every programming bug ever? Should we blame all civic engineers every time a bridge collapses? I am an individual, not "part of a system". Simply being a driver doesn't make me a reckless or dangerous one. For example, 10K of those deaths involve DUI, and I am certainly not part of that system. I'm sure 95% of drivers never kill anyone.
- themarkn 9y ago
  >I am an individual, not "part of a system". Simply being a driver doesn't make me a reckless or dangerous one. For example, 10K of those deaths involve DUI, and I am certainly not part of that system. I'm sure 95% of drivers never kill anyone. Massive misunderstanding. As a driver your actions form a part of the traffic around you, even responsible drivers are "attached" to the system and put pressure on it. Maybe one day somebody rear ends you and you are knocked forward into a crosswalk, or you break suddenly to avoid hitting a pedestrian and cause an accident behind you. Or maybe your very safe driving leaves enough room for somebody to take a foolish risk cutting in front of you and lose control of their car. Collectively society accepts that getting places quickly is worth the cost that we pay in human lives. And each road user agrees to the small risk of death/injury beyond their control in order to get somewhere.
- 11thEarlOfMar 9y ago
  I'd guess that in the US, at least, 99.2% of drivers never kill anyone while driving (including themselves). (back of the envelop, assuming 300,000,000 drivers driving for 60 years of their lives at a 40,000 per year death rate)
- squiggleblaz 9y ago
  It's almost impossible to drive a car without threatening small children and other people with lethal force. People regularly wait on the sides of roads when every traditional custom, convention and current law demands that car drivers stop, but they never do it. "I want to get to the shops quicker" is not an excuse for levelling a gun at someone and asking them to please step aside. Moreover, it is illegal to drive a car safely. If you try it, you will be pulled over. You may be fined or lose your licence. Try it and see. So yes, being a car driver does make you a dangerous one.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Unless you define what you mean by "drive a car safely" I don't see how one can even begin to evaluate that claim meaningfully.
incompatible 9y ago
Perhaps the same standard should be applied to human drivers: if a human makes a mistake and kills somebody, the rest should be taken off the road for retraining. I wonder how the issue developed when the automobile was first introduced. I remember something about needing to have a guy walking in front of the vehicle waving a warning flag, but apparently that didn't last long. Found it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws
- emodendroket 9y ago
  It seems like a faulty analogy, unless you want to tell me that every Uber car is running unique software.
  - incompatible 9y ago
    Yeah, possibly. On one hand, the Uber setup should be examined for flaws. On the other hand, we shouldn't get paranoid about the occasional traffic death when we've already decided (for human drivers) that this is acceptable collateral damage in the transport system.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      The entire pitch for autonomous driving is that it's safer than human drivers. If that's false it's not clear why we should continue to allow Uber to test their work on public roads.
      - incompatible 9y ago
        It could be safer than human drivers and still cause quite a few deaths. We can't evaluate such statistics from one accident. We don't even know if this particular accident would have been avoided by a typical human driver (there was apparently one behind the wheel of the vehicle).
        9y ago
kazinator 9y ago
Not a meaningful counterargument here. Someone can not only drive, but have a history of having been an at-fault driver causing death, yet justifiably not believe that: public roads should be used for private testing such that the profit is private, but the harm is socialized; or that money compensates for lost lives.

azernik 9y ago

And yet, people and companies undertake activities all the time that involve risks to life, and we do indeed attach a monetary value when those lives are harmed. Or, alternatively, we do indeed have a cap to the amount of resources we are willing to expend to save a life - lives are not of infinite value.

libre-man 9y ago
Wat a completely terrible thing to say. This isn't about saving a life, this is about not killing somebody. Just because a company like Uber thinks it can make a lot of money doen't mean it can simply take risks like these.
- cm2187 9y ago
  Every time you are selling food you take the risk of killing people if something goes wrong. And what about carrying people in planes. These risks are taken continuously, for profit. How is that different?
  - libre-man 9y ago
    We wouldn't except it if people got killed by selling them poisoned food, at least not where I'm from. Plane crashes are investigated and licenses are suspended and blacklists are kept, furthermore software is tested and verified before it is used in production. We shouldn't except excessive risks, see regulations with truck and bus drivers, just because a profit can be made.
    - cm2187 9y ago
      But what makes you think Uber didn't test their software? When Boeing introduces carbon fuselage it is taking risks with people's life. They do reasonable testing but a technology isn't proven until it has been widely used for a long time. No risk = no innovation.
      - 9y ago

anon12345690 9y ago

We get it, its sad and money isnt everything, but the world cant stop because of a single death. If there is legal liability here then itll be handled.

zaptheimpaler 9y ago
The world doesn't have to stop, just testing self-driving cars live on public roads with very little evidence that the tech is ready.
- andromeduck 9y ago
  More evidence than human drivers, the same human drivers who are legally responsible/liable for this incident.
emodendroket 9y ago
This attitude went great for Ford with the Pinto, as I recall.