4 ms·

“Society will accept deaths caused by vehicles, regardless of whether the driver is human, robot, dog, alien species, so that people with vehicles can go vroom

“Society will accept deaths caused by vehicles, regardless of whether the driver is human, robot, dog, alien species, so that people with vehicles can go vroom vroom” - every car company since cars have existed. The issues of vehicles and the risk they post to people outside the vehicles are straightforward externality problems which we could solve or optimize if we really wanted to. Every vehicle driven above a certain speed for a unit of time, whether with an human or robot driver, imposes a risk on everyone around it. (whether they are inside or outside of a vehicle) Make a ballpark, even lowball, estimate for that risk, and simply require the people inside the vehicle to compensate others for the risk being imposed on them. Of course this is simplistic and not perfect, but it would be a lot more honest than what we are doing today, and would align incentives to a safe future a lot better than what we do today.

giraffe_lady 1y ago
> externality problems which we could solve or optimize if we really wanted to We have. We've optimized for economic growth of car companies and full car penetration into every crevasse of the built environment. It fucking sucks but if your goal is to have as much driving as possible the current situation is probably close to optimal. It's a problem of values not execution.
tbrownaw 1y ago
The "simple" (as distinct from "easy") option is that anything fast gets a dedicated route that's physically separated - maybe by elevation or such - from everything around it.
- appreciatorBus 1y ago
  Sure, so long as users of the fast dedicated route are the ones paying for it!
efsavage 1y ago
> Make a ballpark, even lowball, estimate for that risk, and simply require the people inside the vehicle to compensate others for the risk being imposed on them. I see your point but we're all imposing risks on each other all the time. I'm sitting on the 6th floor of a 10 floor building, presumably I'm at some non-zero risk of it collapsing, which would be lower if this building was shorter, but I don't feel entitled to compensation from the owner for the marginal risk because they wanted more floors. I think we've actually done alot better in reducing the externalities of direct vehicle deaths (insurance, safety standards, vehicle inspections, etc.) than we have in other areas (energy costs, environmental impact, city/street design, parking, etc.)
- appreciatorBus 1y ago
  I understand there's some level of risk we all just have to accept from each other. I just don't agree that cars fall under that level. It's a huge step change from the risk that you or I will run into each other while walking down the street - suffering perhaps a bruise or two at worst - and the risk imposed on me as someone drives by in a large vehicle at high speed, with easily enough kinetic energy to kill & maim a dozen people and a building to boot.
skepticATX 1y ago
This seems roughly equivalent to liability insurance.

giraffe_lady 1y ago

> externality problems which we could solve or optimize if we really wanted to We have. We've optimized for economic growth of car companies and full car penetration into every crevasse of the built environment. It fucking sucks but if your goal is to have as much driving as possible the current situation is probably close to optimal. It's a problem of values not execution.

tbrownaw 1y ago

The "simple" (as distinct from "easy") option is that anything fast gets a dedicated route that's physically separated - maybe by elevation or such - from everything around it.

appreciatorBus 1y ago
Sure, so long as users of the fast dedicated route are the ones paying for it!

efsavage 1y ago

> Make a ballpark, even lowball, estimate for that risk, and simply require the people inside the vehicle to compensate others for the risk being imposed on them. I see your point but we're all imposing risks on each other all the time. I'm sitting on the 6th floor of a 10 floor building, presumably I'm at some non-zero risk of it collapsing, which would be lower if this building was shorter, but I don't feel entitled to compensation from the owner for the marginal risk because they wanted more floors. I think we've actually done alot better in reducing the externalities of direct vehicle deaths (insurance, safety standards, vehicle inspections, etc.) than we have in other areas (energy costs, environmental impact, city/street design, parking, etc.)

appreciatorBus 1y ago
I understand there's some level of risk we all just have to accept from each other. I just don't agree that cars fall under that level. It's a huge step change from the risk that you or I will run into each other while walking down the street - suffering perhaps a bruise or two at worst - and the risk imposed on me as someone drives by in a large vehicle at high speed, with easily enough kinetic energy to kill & maim a dozen people and a building to boot.

skepticATX 1y ago

This seems roughly equivalent to liability insurance.