4 ms·

>the drivers who practice safe driving techniques and do not drive distracted have something crazy like a 3-4 fold lower That's quite the qualifier. Problem is

by ux-app 8y ago

>the drivers who practice safe driving techniques and do not drive distracted have something crazy like a 3-4 fold lower That's quite the qualifier. Problem is I see at least 3 people with their eyes on their phone during every 30min commute to work ...so... >When the "worst" AI's that are responsible for some amount of crashes, who is going to pay the price? Whose license is going to get deducted? Whose insurance is going to go up? In the world of driverless ubiquity, who is going to be the check and balance? What self-selecting mechanisms are going to protect us? You think Waymo will give a shit? These are literally the least difficult issues around self driving cars. > There are other reasons this argument is fallacious, the most obvious one that driverless cars have not yet proven they are safer or can remain statistically significantly safer than safe human drivers. so we should stop trying?

jimmy1 8y ago
> These are literally the least difficult issues around self driving cars. You are either young, or extremely naive (or both) if you don't think these are going to be challenging problems. > so we should stop trying? Not sure why you thought that this begged that question. What I am saying is we should stop making arguments that compare driverless car habits, problems, and safety to the current habits, problems, and safety of human drivers. They are generally bad arguments. They won't bear any fruit. Statistics aren't people. Trying to sell a generation on driverless cars on some unproven projection that "they will be X times safer!" will fall on deaf ears to drivers who have made it a lifetime of safe driving.
- ux-app 8y ago
  > if you don't think these are going to be challenging problems. are they show stoppers? c'mon assessing risk is old as the hills. There's an entire profession that is devoted to assessing and pricing in risk. With regard to liability, the courts will decide. It'll be messy but it'll get sorted out in time. >Trying to sell a generation on driverless cars on some unproven projection that "they will be X times safer!" will fall on deaf ears to drivers who have made it a lifetime of safe driving. people will get over their fear in time. People feared cars when first introduced too. from https://timeline.com/forget-self-driving-car-anxiety-in-the-early-days-human-drivers-were-the-fear-55a770262c10 https://timeline.com/forget-self-driving-car-anxiety-in-the-...: "With all the anxiety around driverless cars lately, it’s worth remembering there was a time people worried about cars exactly because they had human drivers. In fact, it was the removal of the horses—the horseless carriage—that gave some people fits. In the 1890s, the prospect of a person driving without the aid of a second intelligence was a real concern. A horse, or team of horses, acted as a crude form of cruise control and collision aversion. In 1896 Alfred Sennett warned, “We should not overlook the fact that the driving of a horseless carriage calls for a larger amount of attention for he has not the advantage of the intelligence of the horse in shaping his path, and it is consequently incumbent upon him to be ever watchful of the course his vehicle is taking.”

by ux-app 8y ago

jimmy1 8y ago

> These are literally the least difficult issues around self driving cars. You are either young, or extremely naive (or both) if you don't think these are going to be challenging problems. > so we should stop trying? Not sure why you thought that this begged that question. What I am saying is we should stop making arguments that compare driverless car habits, problems, and safety to the current habits, problems, and safety of human drivers. They are generally bad arguments. They won't bear any fruit. Statistics aren't people. Trying to sell a generation on driverless cars on some unproven projection that "they will be X times safer!" will fall on deaf ears to drivers who have made it a lifetime of safe driving.

ux-app 8y ago
> if you don't think these are going to be challenging problems. are they show stoppers? c'mon assessing risk is old as the hills. There's an entire profession that is devoted to assessing and pricing in risk. With regard to liability, the courts will decide. It'll be messy but it'll get sorted out in time. >Trying to sell a generation on driverless cars on some unproven projection that "they will be X times safer!" will fall on deaf ears to drivers who have made it a lifetime of safe driving. people will get over their fear in time. People feared cars when first introduced too. from https://timeline.com/forget-self-driving-car-anxiety-in-the-early-days-human-drivers-were-the-fear-55a770262c10 https://timeline.com/forget-self-driving-car-anxiety-in-the-...: "With all the anxiety around driverless cars lately, it’s worth remembering there was a time people worried about cars exactly because they had human drivers. In fact, it was the removal of the horses—the horseless carriage—that gave some people fits. In the 1890s, the prospect of a person driving without the aid of a second intelligence was a real concern. A horse, or team of horses, acted as a crude form of cruise control and collision aversion. In 1896 Alfred Sennett warned, “We should not overlook the fact that the driving of a horseless carriage calls for a larger amount of attention for he has not the advantage of the intelligence of the horse in shaping his path, and it is consequently incumbent upon him to be ever watchful of the course his vehicle is taking.”