3 ms·
I definitely agree with your point here. That said, I don't know if the average human drives acceptably, and I'm very skeptical of a "99%" estimate, but I will
by lkbm 3y ago
I definitely agree with your point here.
That said, I don't know if the average human drives acceptably, and I'm very skeptical of a "99%" estimate, but I will say that I would prefer a fleet that consistently drove at the 40%ile of human quality vs. the current human fleet that follows the normal distribution.
If self-driving cars reach 40%ile quality, and enable us to stop the 20% worst drivers from driving (or average drivers when operating at 20%ile due to being drunk or tired), that'd be a huge win for safety.
Right now it's socially unacceptable to increase the difficulty of getting your license, or to take it away for poor performance, because cars are a necessity or near-necessity in most places. If we could provide self-driving vehicles as a fallback, perhaps we could make it easier to permanently lose your license than—checks local laws—repeatedly killing people by driving while intoxicated[0].
[0] https://www.idrivesafely.com/dmv/indiana/laws/dui-and-dwi-laws/ https://www.idrivesafely.com/dmv/indiana/laws/dui-and-dwi-la...
- Lonestar1440 3y agoYes, this is a difficult problem. When I do see the 1%ers changing lanes at 90mph without blinkers, or not using headlights; I long for stricter, automated enforcement. Points, then a suspended license. But I also recognize that many people, having the suspended license, must now choose between never leaving home or driving with a suspended license. I feel like better public transit, more than Self-driving cars (which will be expensive to actually own) is the answer here. We need to lower the cost to an individual of losing driving privilege, so that we can lower the cost to society from bad drivers.