7 ms·
> Self-driving cars can wait. Absolutely not! > Nothing of importance depends on it. Lives of 35000 people a year does.
by oxplot 5y ago
> Self-driving cars can wait.
Absolutely not!
> Nothing of importance depends on it.
Lives of 35000 people a year does.
- savanaly 5y agoYep, and on another level of importance but still important within that level, untold hours of human idleness and boredom sitting behind the wheel. I think drudgery is not too strong a word.
- jcranmer 5y agoSo we should do absolutely nothing to improve the safety of cars (both for people inside and outside the vehicles) until magic self-driving cars provide the solution for all our problems? There's plenty that can be done to make driving safer. Traffic calming measures. Stricter enforcement of traffic laws. Redesigning dangerous intersections. There's no need to wait for self-driving cars, and I suspect that you'll save far more lives by actually doing that stuff instead of hoping self-driving cars might solve the problem for you someday in the future.
- legolas2412 5y agoA question for you, and all self-driving safety proponents. If Tesla's FSD cars are so safe, why are they not taking the liability of the cars. Why have only a regular car insurance punted on to the owners? When the manufacturers of self-driving cars roll out liability of all owners, or taxi services with a monitoring driver with no liability, is the time when self-driving is actually available. Till then it is vaporware.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- GavinMcG 5y ago> why are they not taking the liability of the cars. Because that's still incredibly costly. We as a society care greatly about a decrease in net risk, but that doesn't mean that net risk is small enough for one party to bear.
- legolas2412 5y agoThat makes so sense. When they say "it's safer than a human", that should definitely translate to a smaller insurance cost than a human driven car.
- GavinMcG 5y agoAnd it does. It just doesn't mean that one company can suddenly afford to be an insurer of tens of thousands of drivers.
- tgv 5y agoIf they make driving safer, they could insure cheaper and make more profit than existing insurance companies. Or they could collaborate with insurers to reduce the insurance cost for Tesla drivers, e.g. by underwriting the costs of deadly accidents, and splitting the profit. 35000 deaths, that's a lot of dough. A money making machine like Tesla must surely have thought of that, if it is remotely true.
- esteth 5y agoTesla still don't have a public FSD. All they have is traffic aware cruise control with lane assist + stop signs. And some other bits and pieces.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y agoThey may not have public FSD, but they do have public FSD capable cars! Hopefully that’s clear to all the consumers involved.
- avereveard 5y agoall our cars' hardware support some unspecified version of self driving software that doesn't exist; to use our version of self driving software you have to add this 10k piece, and while using this version of self driving software you'll have to be in control of the vehicle all the time.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jazzyjackson 5y agoRadar and AI does not fix the problem of cars being a dangerous way to travel.