2 ms·
That's an irrelevant benchmark except for people who pay premium to have the safest ride in the world. Everyone else performs a tradeoff along multiple axes in
by the8472 8y ago
That's an irrelevant benchmark except for people who pay premium to have the safest ride in the world.
Everyone else performs a tradeoff along multiple axes including price, convenience and safety. Not needing a driver, freeing up time and lowering prices increase utility which could even justify a slight increase in risk.
But even if we don't want to increase risk then a self-driving system still only has to be as good as humans on average to result in no net-increase of deaths per passenger mile while still increasing overall utility.
And more simply, it is silly to expect the maximum possible value to be the minimum requirement.
- rohit2412 8y agoLet's agree to disagree. But if we allow driverless cars on the road (with no backup), it should come after emergency braking, lane keeping assist, side collision assist etc have become mandatory. Just like airbags are mandatory now, and we enforce fuel efficiency on new cars but not existing cars.
- rohit2412 8y agoJust to add. In a world where airbags are not mandatory,(autopilot+airbag) driverless technology would be safer than the average human (without airbags) on the road. So, you would be arguing for legalizing driverless cars completely overlooking that the gains are not because of driverless-ness but because of airbags. This holds true now too, almost all gains by driverless-ness can be had by emergency braking, lane keeping assists, side collision warning, and pedestrian detection etc.