5 ms·

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.

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?
- thereisnospork 5y ago
  >We have existing solutions that don't result in these excess deaths The existing solutions <As chosen by the collective will of the American people> cause 40,000 dead Americans every year. Other 'Solutions' are not. Don't ask me why they are not, ask your neighbor, and your congressman -- but they are not. Also ask yourself how many collective minutes spent waiting for a bus is a traffic fatality worth? This isn't rhetorical, the answer is a number. >Which bill are you talking about? Lets start with the United States Department of Transportation, followed shortly thereafter by your state's department of transportation. >it's just proof that we have grandfathered an extremely unsafe system here. All the reason why a potentially new system should have to meet the safety standard of 'less unsafe' and not 'perfect'. Literally every day the adoption of self driving is delayed kills 109.6 people[0] because that's one more day of the status quo. To save lives we should be damn near throwing people in front of Teslas to help them train instead of wringing our hands over the matter. [0]As much as, divided by the relative eventually safety of a fully developed self driving. As Americans, more globally of course.
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    I'm confused. Is the only way forward private automobiles? Did the creation of the Department of Transportation ban the creation of transit? Americans choose automobiles because of zoning laws mandating massive setbacks and minimum parking requirements. There's nothing in the DoT or my state's DoT that mandates use of a car. It's all due to American city planning, which is driven by auto friendly city planning policy. So again, why is transit out of the question here? Self-driving cars aren't an incremental improvement away. We have no idea how many more deaths are needed to mature the technology. So why are we bending over backwards for it when there are proven solutions to move people without casualty? If self driving can innovate without casualty, then be my guest.
    - thereisnospork 5y ago
      >If self driving can innovate without casualty, then be my guest. You would kill tens of thousands of people a year with that policy decision.
  - 5y ago

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?
thereisnospork 5y ago
>We have existing solutions that don't result in these excess deaths The existing solutions <As chosen by the collective will of the American people> cause 40,000 dead Americans every year. Other 'Solutions' are not. Don't ask me why they are not, ask your neighbor, and your congressman -- but they are not. Also ask yourself how many collective minutes spent waiting for a bus is a traffic fatality worth? This isn't rhetorical, the answer is a number. >Which bill are you talking about? Lets start with the United States Department of Transportation, followed shortly thereafter by your state's department of transportation. >it's just proof that we have grandfathered an extremely unsafe system here. All the reason why a potentially new system should have to meet the safety standard of 'less unsafe' and not 'perfect'. Literally every day the adoption of self driving is delayed kills 109.6 people[0] because that's one more day of the status quo. To save lives we should be damn near throwing people in front of Teslas to help them train instead of wringing our hands over the matter. [0]As much as, divided by the relative eventually safety of a fully developed self driving. As Americans, more globally of course.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  I'm confused. Is the only way forward private automobiles? Did the creation of the Department of Transportation ban the creation of transit? Americans choose automobiles because of zoning laws mandating massive setbacks and minimum parking requirements. There's nothing in the DoT or my state's DoT that mandates use of a car. It's all due to American city planning, which is driven by auto friendly city planning policy. So again, why is transit out of the question here? Self-driving cars aren't an incremental improvement away. We have no idea how many more deaths are needed to mature the technology. So why are we bending over backwards for it when there are proven solutions to move people without casualty? If self driving can innovate without casualty, then be my guest.
  - thereisnospork 5y ago
    >If self driving can innovate without casualty, then be my guest. You would kill tens of thousands of people a year with that policy decision.
- 5y ago