3 ms·

This can all be solved simply by driving your own car.

by cjk2 2y ago

JodieBenitez 2y ago
Or take the train. Or the bus. It's not self-driving, but you're still not driving.
crummy 2y ago
hmm no. the car keeps crashing when I do that
- cjk2 2y ago
  I’ve driven over a million miles without crashing into a moving train. Or a stopped train. Or even a car.
JimDabell 2y ago
We know empirically that having humans drive cars results in many accidents, injuries, and deaths. We’ve tried many ways to solve this problem without success, and it seems reasonable to conclude that we cannot make human driving safe. It’s still early days for autonomous driving and it clearly isn’t there yet. But perhaps one day it will be. We won’t know unless we keep trying. But what we do know – with an extremely high degree of confidence – is that “just drive the car yourself” has a very large death toll. That’s not the solution to road safety you seem to think it is. The status quo is very dangerous.
- cjk2 2y ago
  Well define "safe". If we compare the US to the UK for example, it's considerably safer driving in the UK. Surely investment in some level of change that is causal on that level will result in more lives being saved than introducing a whole new technology arena with unknown risks? Having driven in both places, the driving standards in the US are much much worse. Perhaps we should concentrate on that first? And because not everyone will be able to afford a self-driving car utopia, perhaps it will have a greater effect. As always the technology industry perhaps is using this justification to solve the wrong end of the problem.
  - JimDabell 2y ago
    > Well define "safe". 1.2m road traffic deaths occur annually. There is no definition of “safe” that kills over a million people a year. > Having driven in both places, the driving standards in the US are much much worse. Perhaps we should concentrate on that first? Both can be worked on simultaneously. “Why don’t we do X first?” is really just saying “Stop working on Y!” in disguise.
    - cjk2 2y ago
      That’s ignoring the differences between where and how many. The latter point ignores my valid point that this may have a lesser impact than increasing driving standards. Way to pick and choose things …
      - JimDabell 2y ago
        Why are you repeatedly presenting this as a choice? Once again, you don’t need to choose between them. It doesn’t matter which has the biggest impact. Do both. What we can be sure of is that your solution cannot make human driving safe. We’ve been trying for a long time and haven’t come close to solving it.

This can all be solved simply by driving your own car.

by cjk2 2y ago

This can all be solved simply by driving your own car.

JodieBenitez 2y ago

Or take the train. Or the bus. It's not self-driving, but you're still not driving.

crummy 2y ago

hmm no. the car keeps crashing when I do that

cjk2 2y ago
I’ve driven over a million miles without crashing into a moving train. Or a stopped train. Or even a car.

JimDabell 2y ago

We know empirically that having humans drive cars results in many accidents, injuries, and deaths. We’ve tried many ways to solve this problem without success, and it seems reasonable to conclude that we cannot make human driving safe. It’s still early days for autonomous driving and it clearly isn’t there yet. But perhaps one day it will be. We won’t know unless we keep trying. But what we do know – with an extremely high degree of confidence – is that “just drive the car yourself” has a very large death toll. That’s not the solution to road safety you seem to think it is. The status quo is very dangerous.

cjk2 2y ago
Well define "safe". If we compare the US to the UK for example, it's considerably safer driving in the UK. Surely investment in some level of change that is causal on that level will result in more lives being saved than introducing a whole new technology arena with unknown risks? Having driven in both places, the driving standards in the US are much much worse. Perhaps we should concentrate on that first? And because not everyone will be able to afford a self-driving car utopia, perhaps it will have a greater effect. As always the technology industry perhaps is using this justification to solve the wrong end of the problem.
- JimDabell 2y ago
  > Well define "safe". 1.2m road traffic deaths occur annually. There is no definition of “safe” that kills over a million people a year. > Having driven in both places, the driving standards in the US are much much worse. Perhaps we should concentrate on that first? Both can be worked on simultaneously. “Why don’t we do X first?” is really just saying “Stop working on Y!” in disguise.
  - cjk2 2y ago
    That’s ignoring the differences between where and how many. The latter point ignores my valid point that this may have a lesser impact than increasing driving standards. Way to pick and choose things …
    - JimDabell 2y ago
      Why are you repeatedly presenting this as a choice? Once again, you don’t need to choose between them. It doesn’t matter which has the biggest impact. Do both. What we can be sure of is that your solution cannot make human driving safe. We’ve been trying for a long time and haven’t come close to solving it.