3 ms·
> And I don't like them. They're not there for you to like - they're there for the people you might kill with your car. > the government taking away our choic
by chrisseaton 5y ago
> And I don't like them.
They're not there for you to like - they're there for the people you might kill with your car.
> the government taking away our choice...
...to plough into people with your car.
- HWR_14 5y agoI don't think those devices reduce the number of accidents, so I disagree with your premise. I think they serve to help slowly roll out self-driving capabilities.
- chrisseaton 5y ago> I don't think those devices reduce the number of accidents Good for you. But society disagrees and requires them.
- HWR_14 5y agoPeople in society are disagreeing about the accuracy of the devices and arguing about it. Kinda circular logic to insist that "this law is about the be passed, therefore it's the will of society, and therefore is correct."
- anakaine 5y agoThere was also a time where people suggested that vehicles replacing horses was unsafe. They were, of course, correct in a sense, but tended to ignore the decrease in horse related accidents. There was also a time where quite a number of people believed that the human body couldn't cope with speeds over some arbitrary number. They also were proven to be incorrect - mainly because technology enabled people to travel faster and then subsequently made that travel safer.
- marcellus23 5y ago> I don't think those devices reduce the number of accidents Do you have a source for this?
- HWR_14 5y agoI don't know of any comprehensive studies that have been published one way or the other. I know sometimes the computer causes accidents and sometimes they help prevent them. That said, I've yet to see anything that indicates they prevent an appreciable number of accidents - it's usually pitched as driver convenience and data collection for self-driving.