3 ms·

While I agree with you, it brings the moral/legal dilemma about who is responsible when FSD kills someone. I'd love to see all cars being on FSD and communicat

While I agree with you, it brings the moral/legal dilemma about who is responsible when FSD kills someone. I'd love to see all cars being on FSD and communicating with each other around, dropping deaths (and even minor accidents) to virtually zero though.

ghaff 5y ago
Clearly something that will have to be addressed legally. Outside of (to a certain degree) drugs (and tobacco, which is regulated and known to be harmful) there are very few consumer-facing products which used and maintained properly just randomly kill people sometimes--and we shrug our shoulders and say "stuff happens."
JadeNB 5y ago
> I'd love to see all cars being on FSD and communicating with each other around, dropping deaths (and even minor accidents) to virtually zero though. That sounds like a world that'll be great as long as you're in a car, and terrible if you're a pedestrian or cyclist. Kind of like the world we've got now, except with even more victim blaming.
- can16358p 5y ago
  It can make everything safer for everyone, both cars and pedestrians. If all cars redundantly detect everything around them, including approaching other vehicles _and_ pedestrians, and relay that data to other nearby vehicles, why would it be a nightmare for pedestrians?
  - JadeNB 5y ago
    "Can" is the operative word there, I think. I don't think that this is how it has to be, just how it will be. Cars communicating with one another means that they will prioritise QoS for one another, and pedestrian safety will be, as ever it has been, an afterthought—at least as long as there's more penalty for damaging a person's car than for injuring the person themselves.
kiba 5y ago
The better solution is just to get rid of car and use trains and bikes more. Trains don't require FSD and yet they're incredibly safe. FSD exists only because we built our entire society around cars.
- ghaff 5y ago
  So people are only allowed to live or visit places with sufficient density that you're in cycling distance of a train station? (And heaven help you if you can't cycle for some reason.) Even in countries with good train service and lots of cycling, this certainly isn't the case today. Good luck locking everyone up into urban areas.
  - kiba 5y ago
    The only reason why we were able to live the car oriented lifestyle we have is because we decided to subsidize and build roads for mass market cars. This doesn't preclude the existence of streetcar suburbs with walkable neighborhoods, and it isn't so bad once you realize that cars generate a whole lot of noise, especially the faster they run. Long distance journey can be facilitated by interurban rails and railroads.

ghaff 5y ago

Clearly something that will have to be addressed legally. Outside of (to a certain degree) drugs (and tobacco, which is regulated and known to be harmful) there are very few consumer-facing products which used and maintained properly just randomly kill people sometimes--and we shrug our shoulders and say "stuff happens."

JadeNB 5y ago

> I'd love to see all cars being on FSD and communicating with each other around, dropping deaths (and even minor accidents) to virtually zero though. That sounds like a world that'll be great as long as you're in a car, and terrible if you're a pedestrian or cyclist. Kind of like the world we've got now, except with even more victim blaming.

can16358p 5y ago
It can make everything safer for everyone, both cars and pedestrians. If all cars redundantly detect everything around them, including approaching other vehicles _and_ pedestrians, and relay that data to other nearby vehicles, why would it be a nightmare for pedestrians?
- JadeNB 5y ago
  "Can" is the operative word there, I think. I don't think that this is how it has to be, just how it will be. Cars communicating with one another means that they will prioritise QoS for one another, and pedestrian safety will be, as ever it has been, an afterthought—at least as long as there's more penalty for damaging a person's car than for injuring the person themselves.

kiba 5y ago

The better solution is just to get rid of car and use trains and bikes more. Trains don't require FSD and yet they're incredibly safe. FSD exists only because we built our entire society around cars.

ghaff 5y ago
So people are only allowed to live or visit places with sufficient density that you're in cycling distance of a train station? (And heaven help you if you can't cycle for some reason.) Even in countries with good train service and lots of cycling, this certainly isn't the case today. Good luck locking everyone up into urban areas.
- kiba 5y ago
  The only reason why we were able to live the car oriented lifestyle we have is because we decided to subsidize and build roads for mass market cars. This doesn't preclude the existence of streetcar suburbs with walkable neighborhoods, and it isn't so bad once you realize that cars generate a whole lot of noise, especially the faster they run. Long distance journey can be facilitated by interurban rails and railroads.