3 ms·

I think autonomous vehicles are exceptional occasion to apply similar practices to commercial airlines. The reason it could not be done with cars is the driver

I think autonomous vehicles are exceptional occasion to apply similar practices to commercial airlines. The reason it could not be done with cars is the drivers. Drivers simply cannot be held to the same standard as commercial pilots or staff. Remove the driver from the equation and it might just be possible to replicate the process. That assumes regulation that will require "operators" to provide truthful reporting of accidents.

ttcbj 3y ago
I really like the admiralcloudberg blog, which provides extensive analysis of plane crashes and the NTSB investigation that follows. I hadn’t thought of it, but I think the idea of similar investigations for self-driving car accidents is a really great idea. Though, one recurrent theme of that blog is that blame and persecution are generally counterproductive to understanding the accident and improving safety.
- onetimeuse92304 3y ago
  Blame and persecution are not counterproductive, they are crucial to improving safety. It is called accountability and if nobody is accountable for anything then there is no actual motivation to get businesses and financial institutions to do anything about it. What is counterproductive is blaming and persecuting wrong things. The goal is to get companies to be accountable for being committed to taking this process seriously, providing honest information whenever it is needed and then to honestly implement the recommendations once the process is concluded. We know that technical bugs happen regardless of good intentions. So we should err on the side of being lenient. Where we should not be lenient about is simple negligence where all of the information was available and the decision was made regardless. For example, if the manufacturer knew that bolts were lying around and decided to save on the costs by being willingly blind to the fact. And where real persecution should strictly follow is hiding information and evidence that is obviously needed to improve safety.
  - hardcopy 3y ago
    > Blame and persecution are not counterproductive, they are crucial to improving safety. There's a good chapter on blame that you should read in this book: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/There-Are-No-Accidents/Jessie-Singer/9781982129682 https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/There-Are-No-Accident...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
nunez 3y ago
> The reason it could not be done with cars is the drivers. Drivers simply cannot be held to the same standard as commercial pilots or staff. They could; it would be devastating to the economy, though. I'm all for it though. Too many people get injured and die by auto every day.
TheCoelacanth 3y ago
Drivers can't be, but road designers and car manufacturers can and should be. It should be unacceptable to design roads or cars in a way that increases the likelihood of injury or death and every serious injury or death should be investigated to determine if the road or car contributed to the accident.

ttcbj 3y ago

I really like the admiralcloudberg blog, which provides extensive analysis of plane crashes and the NTSB investigation that follows. I hadn’t thought of it, but I think the idea of similar investigations for self-driving car accidents is a really great idea. Though, one recurrent theme of that blog is that blame and persecution are generally counterproductive to understanding the accident and improving safety.

onetimeuse92304 3y ago
Blame and persecution are not counterproductive, they are crucial to improving safety. It is called accountability and if nobody is accountable for anything then there is no actual motivation to get businesses and financial institutions to do anything about it. What is counterproductive is blaming and persecuting wrong things. The goal is to get companies to be accountable for being committed to taking this process seriously, providing honest information whenever it is needed and then to honestly implement the recommendations once the process is concluded. We know that technical bugs happen regardless of good intentions. So we should err on the side of being lenient. Where we should not be lenient about is simple negligence where all of the information was available and the decision was made regardless. For example, if the manufacturer knew that bolts were lying around and decided to save on the costs by being willingly blind to the fact. And where real persecution should strictly follow is hiding information and evidence that is obviously needed to improve safety.
- hardcopy 3y ago
  > Blame and persecution are not counterproductive, they are crucial to improving safety. There's a good chapter on blame that you should read in this book: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/There-Are-No-Accidents/Jessie-Singer/9781982129682 https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/There-Are-No-Accident...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

nunez 3y ago

> The reason it could not be done with cars is the drivers. Drivers simply cannot be held to the same standard as commercial pilots or staff. They could; it would be devastating to the economy, though. I'm all for it though. Too many people get injured and die by auto every day.

TheCoelacanth 3y ago

Drivers can't be, but road designers and car manufacturers can and should be. It should be unacceptable to design roads or cars in a way that increases the likelihood of injury or death and every serious injury or death should be investigated to determine if the road or car contributed to the accident.