5 ms·

We don't have to ban self driving cars. We just set the success criteria at zero deaths. If companies want to spend money pursuing it believing they can hit th

We don't have to ban self driving cars. We just set the success criteria at zero deaths. If companies want to spend money pursuing it believing they can hit that goal that's on them.

twblalock 5y ago
> We don't have to ban self driving cars. We just set the success criteria at zero deaths. That's equivalent to a ban.
- rhizome 5y ago
  Because the technology is a non-starter and will never work unless accepted terms of public safety are redefined in its favor. "Just draw a bigger bullseye!"
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  There's multiple alternatives to driver-driven cars that result in many fewer excess deaths. They've been trialed and deployed in many countries very successfully. You may know of them by common names such as "buses", "streetcars", "trains", "metros", or even "people movers". There's nothing wrong with innovation but we do not need to put self-driving technology on a pedestal when there are alternatives that exist today that move people around that have none of these externalities. If entities want to innovate, let them innovate within safety parameters.
  - thereisnospork 5y ago
    We could also set the speed limit to 5mph and limit cars to 10hp. That would save a lot of lives. The reason we don't is because some deaths are worth the cost. >If entities want to innovate, let them innovate within safety parameters. Sure, but the safety parameters have already been established[0] at 40,000 deaths a year, or less, for transportation equivalently convenient and functional as compared to a manually-driven car. [0]By the crowd-sourced wisdom of democracy.
    - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
      > We could also set the speed limit to 5mph and limit cars to 10hp. That would save a lot of lives. The reason we don't is because some deaths are worth the cost. Are you saying that, despite transit alternatives that do not lead to excess deaths, that deaths due to self-driving cars is worth the cost? We have existing solutions that don't result in these excess deaths, but because of some reason, we don't want those solutions _and_ we want to kill more people just to birth this technology? _Why_? > [0]By the crowd-sourced wisdom of democracy. ... Which bill are you talking about? I don't remember my Rep or Senator voting on allowing me to be a casualty of the self-driving industry. The fact that automobiles in the US result in 40k deaths is itself a travesty. Even Canada is doing better than the US here. Pointing to the worst driving safety record in the G8 and one of the worst in the G20 isn't exactly proof positive that the American automobile system is safe, it's just proof that we have grandfathered an extremely unsafe system here.
      - twblalock 5y ago
        It seems like what you really want is to ban cars and force everyone to use public transit. That's just not realistic, not even in Europe.
        6510 5y ago
        That seems like a much to fun thought experiment to just do away with. Why wouldn't it be realistic?
        twblalock 5y ago
        Riots in the streets? That happened in France when the government increased the price of diesel. Imagine what would have happened if the government had tried to ban cars entirely! If a state government or the US Federal government tried to ban cars, they would be out of power very quickly, even in the most liberal parts of the country.
        5y ago
- kyleee 5y ago
  of course it's not, it just increases expense, but that should be offset by the potential reward of a true breakthrough. it will change the innovation path yes but it's not a ban
  - twblalock 5y ago
    Impossible standards are equivalent to bans, and zero deaths is an impossible standard. All of the companies that are testing self-driving cars have had accidents with other cars and pedestrians. Some of them resulted in death. Others did not, but easily could have, and eventually their luck will run out and they will also cause deaths. Who would invest millions of dollars into developing a technology when a single mistake could flush all that money down the drain?
standyro 5y ago
We have around 38,000 deaths a year on US roads. We already accept significant risk to maintain the status quo. Sensible legislation is needed to balance innovation and safety for self driving cars on public roads, but not zero. We don’t even accept zero pedestrian hit and run deaths yet… California, Texas, and Michigan legislators have already bought in to the benefits that these companies will bring.
josephcsible 5y ago
Zero deaths is a completely unreasonable standard. I literally can't think of a single thing at all that's never contributed to anyone's death.

We don't have to ban self driving cars. We just set the success criteria at zero deaths. If companies want to spend money pursuing it believing they can hit that goal that's on them.

twblalock 5y ago

> We don't have to ban self driving cars. We just set the success criteria at zero deaths. That's equivalent to a ban.

rhizome 5y ago
Because the technology is a non-starter and will never work unless accepted terms of public safety are redefined in its favor. "Just draw a bigger bullseye!"
Karrot_Kream 5y ago
There's multiple alternatives to driver-driven cars that result in many fewer excess deaths. They've been trialed and deployed in many countries very successfully. You may know of them by common names such as "buses", "streetcars", "trains", "metros", or even "people movers". There's nothing wrong with innovation but we do not need to put self-driving technology on a pedestal when there are alternatives that exist today that move people around that have none of these externalities. If entities want to innovate, let them innovate within safety parameters.
- thereisnospork 5y ago
  We could also set the speed limit to 5mph and limit cars to 10hp. That would save a lot of lives. The reason we don't is because some deaths are worth the cost. >If entities want to innovate, let them innovate within safety parameters. Sure, but the safety parameters have already been established[0] at 40,000 deaths a year, or less, for transportation equivalently convenient and functional as compared to a manually-driven car. [0]By the crowd-sourced wisdom of democracy.
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    > We could also set the speed limit to 5mph and limit cars to 10hp. That would save a lot of lives. The reason we don't is because some deaths are worth the cost. Are you saying that, despite transit alternatives that do not lead to excess deaths, that deaths due to self-driving cars is worth the cost? We have existing solutions that don't result in these excess deaths, but because of some reason, we don't want those solutions _and_ we want to kill more people just to birth this technology? _Why_? > [0]By the crowd-sourced wisdom of democracy. ... Which bill are you talking about? I don't remember my Rep or Senator voting on allowing me to be a casualty of the self-driving industry. The fact that automobiles in the US result in 40k deaths is itself a travesty. Even Canada is doing better than the US here. Pointing to the worst driving safety record in the G8 and one of the worst in the G20 isn't exactly proof positive that the American automobile system is safe, it's just proof that we have grandfathered an extremely unsafe system here.
    - twblalock 5y ago
      It seems like what you really want is to ban cars and force everyone to use public transit. That's just not realistic, not even in Europe.
      - 6510 5y ago
        That seems like a much to fun thought experiment to just do away with. Why wouldn't it be realistic?
        twblalock 5y ago
        Riots in the streets? That happened in France when the government increased the price of diesel. Imagine what would have happened if the government had tried to ban cars entirely! If a state government or the US Federal government tried to ban cars, they would be out of power very quickly, even in the most liberal parts of the country.
        5y ago
kyleee 5y ago
of course it's not, it just increases expense, but that should be offset by the potential reward of a true breakthrough. it will change the innovation path yes but it's not a ban
- twblalock 5y ago
  Impossible standards are equivalent to bans, and zero deaths is an impossible standard. All of the companies that are testing self-driving cars have had accidents with other cars and pedestrians. Some of them resulted in death. Others did not, but easily could have, and eventually their luck will run out and they will also cause deaths. Who would invest millions of dollars into developing a technology when a single mistake could flush all that money down the drain?

standyro 5y ago

We have around 38,000 deaths a year on US roads. We already accept significant risk to maintain the status quo. Sensible legislation is needed to balance innovation and safety for self driving cars on public roads, but not zero. We don’t even accept zero pedestrian hit and run deaths yet… California, Texas, and Michigan legislators have already bought in to the benefits that these companies will bring.

josephcsible 5y ago

Zero deaths is a completely unreasonable standard. I literally can't think of a single thing at all that's never contributed to anyone's death.