4 ms·

> 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.
        Karrot_Kream 5y ago
        Yes and I'm pretty sure if you let everyone know they're going to be enrolled into a massive experiment to test beta self driving software upon themselves with or without their consent, then they're going to be rioting also.
        6510 5y ago
        We fix that by doing it really really slowly.
      - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
        That's a strawman. You can make private automobile ownership much safer and more convenient by building transit. What you're implying is that "forcing everyone to use public transit" is bad, so we need to sacrifice a couple thousand people for self-driving cars? My argument is that we can put much more stringent safety requirements on automobile users. If self driving cars can meet those requirements, then be my guest. Why are you willing to bend over backwards, to the point of endangering others, just to avoid public transit or other proven safe technologies?
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?

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.
        Karrot_Kream 5y ago
        Yes and I'm pretty sure if you let everyone know they're going to be enrolled into a massive experiment to test beta self driving software upon themselves with or without their consent, then they're going to be rioting also.
        6510 5y ago
        We fix that by doing it really really slowly.
    - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
      That's a strawman. You can make private automobile ownership much safer and more convenient by building transit. What you're implying is that "forcing everyone to use public transit" is bad, so we need to sacrifice a couple thousand people for self-driving cars? My argument is that we can put much more stringent safety requirements on automobile users. If self driving cars can meet those requirements, then be my guest. Why are you willing to bend over backwards, to the point of endangering others, just to avoid public transit or other proven safe technologies?

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?