3 ms·
> Why would you allow some tech company to develop its technology at the risk of pedestrian safety? If we cared about pedestrian safety, we wouldn't let ~half[
by vkou 3y ago
> Why would you allow some tech company to develop its technology at the risk of pedestrian safety?
If we cared about pedestrian safety, we wouldn't let ~half[1] the drivers on the roads drive.
[1] I kid, it's more like 5-10%.
- happytoexplain 3y agoWe can't reasonably measure the safety of individuals until they do something concrete, like get caught driving recklessly/drunk/distracted. If a company endangers people because they wanted to hit their timeline or save face or whatever, that's pure evil. They're simply incomparable. We can address both things. The "but people are statistically worse" argument is a horrible, thoughtless "gotcha" in the form of whataboutism that makes light of people's lives.
- add-sub-mul-div 3y ago> The "but people are statistically worse" argument is a horrible, thoughtless "gotcha" It's also laughably unproven, unless it was to be scaled up, exposed to the full range of driving conditions, and measured for a long time.
- vkou 3y agoA small percentage of people drive like shit in concrete ways all the time. Not signaling, driving too fast for the conditions, aggressive merges, cutting people off on turns. It's just that nobody cares about enforcing low-level violations, and we just let them keep trying, keep rolling the dice, until their lack of consideration for other people kills someone.