4 ms·
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 cau
by 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 agoThat’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 agoWhy 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.