23 ms·

We see with trains and jets that the public does not accept deaths with the same benign resignation as automobiles. The question is: will turning all the cars

We see with trains and jets that the public does not accept deaths with the same benign resignation as automobiles. The question is: will turning all the cars into a collective Borg operated by Big Tech upend our indifference to auto fatalities? Already we see that all the latest catastrophes from self-driving cars make much better press, so no, society will not give Waymo a “pass” for just killing a few people through a corporate cost-benefit analysis, particularly when those people never accepted the risk of dealing with Waymo in the first place. And you can substitute the name of any other car company there.

RajT88 1y ago
I think the people expect more from things controlled by a central authority. They have very low expectations of transportation operated by individuals. Much in the same way we have low expectations of other people in general.
iambateman 1y ago
That's an interesting comparison...I think you may be right in the long-term.
ericmay 1y ago
Auto fatalities are insane, and the US focus on build highways at all costs while out of the other side of their mouth parroting talking points about safety is one of the uniquely stupid things we do as a society. The safest car is the one parked in your garage. The safest driver is the one who isn't behind the wheel. That being said, I think Waymo is spot-on here. The US at least will accept deaths due to these machines - look at how we accept car deaths now - but the problem Waymo faces is that when these machines do kill someone it's not like automobile insurance today but instead it's a lawsuit every single time until/unless we construct a new regulatory framework to divest corporations from having real responsibility for the deaths caused by these machines. We shouldn't fight the technology, IMO, because I think over the long term it will be safer to be in an autonomous car. We should instead ensure that if such deaths occur, businesses don't get to step away from their responsibility and have to pay rather large sums. All that being said, all of the above is a complete waste of time and civilizational level resources. Most people should be walking, biking, and hopping on an automated rail line to get around. It's cheaper, healthier, and better in every way. And then when you want to take the car for that road trip or Sunday drive you still can.
- spwa4 1y ago
  That's pretty sad. That means the real question society wants answered before letting these things on the road is not how to avoid deaths, but who pays and how much when deaths aren't avoided.
  - ericmay 1y ago
    That, unfortunately, is the reality. There are in the US probably 0 departments of transportation/highways including at the federal level that are focused on reducing car crashes and deaths. The only true focus is expansion of highways to ease congestion. Why is that? The staff and engineers at these organizations and all of the contracting companies make a lot of money building additive solutions to existing problems. They can’t build a rail line or a tram line because then they won’t have a job. Sidewalks crumble not because of a lack of funding, but because there is more money to be made widening a highway.
    - BurningFrog 1y ago
      The US Department of Transportation includes minimizing traffic deaths in their planning by assigning a cost of $13.7M as the "Valuation of a Statistical Life": https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-...
      - ericmay 1y ago
        Sure, but you know that number and how it's treated is bullshit. Want to know why? In Ohio in 2024 there were around 1,200 fatalities due to car crashes. The Ohio Department of Transportation's budget is around $11 billion. Multiple 1,200 by $13,700,000.00 and let me know what number you get. That's just Ohio. None of these departments operate in any way other than to build and expand highways. If they actually had to be accountable for the number of deaths, they'd do the opposite. They would be tearing down highways and implementing safer and more cost effective alternatives.
etiennebausson 1y ago
People give car fatalities in general a pass because it could be have been them driving. If Waymo or a concurrent replace drivers, they don't get that free pass anymore, because the jury will not think it could have been them. That would actually be a better situation to today's "free pass for everyone as long as no drug involved" that rules nowaday.
- staticautomatic 1y ago
  This is basically the opposite of how juror psychology works. Jurors in these cases tend to vote against defendants they identify with because they prefer to believe they’d never act like the defendant. Source: I’m a former jury consultant who researched and consulted on these kinds of cases.
  - nostrebored 1y ago
    Most of these cases never make it to a jury or result in felony charges.
fouc 1y ago
>trains and jets there's more than a hundred people on those vehicles though. also I'm sure a lot of the safety is driven in part by customer demand - people would quickly stop buying airplane tickets if airplanes were crashing regularly. if robotaxis were also crashing regularly people would stop using them at all.
spankalee 1y ago
The question wasn't about "corporate cost-benefit analysis", it was simply (and vaguely) will society accepts deaths caused by robots, and the answer simply admitted the reality that no technology is perfect. What should the answer have been?
condiment 1y ago
Trains and airplanes are fundamentally different from cars. A car accident is unlikely to kill you. A plane crash will. A car accident is unlikely to kill your entire family. A plane crash will. The standard is higher for these modes of transportation because the consequences of individual incidents are higher. People innately recognize this; we only have one life; one family.
- bluGill 1y ago
  A train or airplane is much less likely to kill me than a car. Just if there is an accident those two modes are more likely to kill, but they are massively much less likely to be in an accident in the first place.

RajT88 1y ago

I think the people expect more from things controlled by a central authority. They have very low expectations of transportation operated by individuals. Much in the same way we have low expectations of other people in general.

iambateman 1y ago

That's an interesting comparison...I think you may be right in the long-term.

ericmay 1y ago

Auto fatalities are insane, and the US focus on build highways at all costs while out of the other side of their mouth parroting talking points about safety is one of the uniquely stupid things we do as a society. The safest car is the one parked in your garage. The safest driver is the one who isn't behind the wheel. That being said, I think Waymo is spot-on here. The US at least will accept deaths due to these machines - look at how we accept car deaths now - but the problem Waymo faces is that when these machines do kill someone it's not like automobile insurance today but instead it's a lawsuit every single time until/unless we construct a new regulatory framework to divest corporations from having real responsibility for the deaths caused by these machines. We shouldn't fight the technology, IMO, because I think over the long term it will be safer to be in an autonomous car. We should instead ensure that if such deaths occur, businesses don't get to step away from their responsibility and have to pay rather large sums. All that being said, all of the above is a complete waste of time and civilizational level resources. Most people should be walking, biking, and hopping on an automated rail line to get around. It's cheaper, healthier, and better in every way. And then when you want to take the car for that road trip or Sunday drive you still can.

spwa4 1y ago
That's pretty sad. That means the real question society wants answered before letting these things on the road is not how to avoid deaths, but who pays and how much when deaths aren't avoided.
- ericmay 1y ago
  That, unfortunately, is the reality. There are in the US probably 0 departments of transportation/highways including at the federal level that are focused on reducing car crashes and deaths. The only true focus is expansion of highways to ease congestion. Why is that? The staff and engineers at these organizations and all of the contracting companies make a lot of money building additive solutions to existing problems. They can’t build a rail line or a tram line because then they won’t have a job. Sidewalks crumble not because of a lack of funding, but because there is more money to be made widening a highway.
  - BurningFrog 1y ago
    The US Department of Transportation includes minimizing traffic deaths in their planning by assigning a cost of $13.7M as the "Valuation of a Statistical Life": https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-...
    - ericmay 1y ago
      Sure, but you know that number and how it's treated is bullshit. Want to know why? In Ohio in 2024 there were around 1,200 fatalities due to car crashes. The Ohio Department of Transportation's budget is around $11 billion. Multiple 1,200 by $13,700,000.00 and let me know what number you get. That's just Ohio. None of these departments operate in any way other than to build and expand highways. If they actually had to be accountable for the number of deaths, they'd do the opposite. They would be tearing down highways and implementing safer and more cost effective alternatives.

etiennebausson 1y ago

People give car fatalities in general a pass because it could be have been them driving. If Waymo or a concurrent replace drivers, they don't get that free pass anymore, because the jury will not think it could have been them. That would actually be a better situation to today's "free pass for everyone as long as no drug involved" that rules nowaday.

staticautomatic 1y ago
This is basically the opposite of how juror psychology works. Jurors in these cases tend to vote against defendants they identify with because they prefer to believe they’d never act like the defendant. Source: I’m a former jury consultant who researched and consulted on these kinds of cases.
- nostrebored 1y ago
  Most of these cases never make it to a jury or result in felony charges.

fouc 1y ago

>trains and jets there's more than a hundred people on those vehicles though. also I'm sure a lot of the safety is driven in part by customer demand - people would quickly stop buying airplane tickets if airplanes were crashing regularly. if robotaxis were also crashing regularly people would stop using them at all.

spankalee 1y ago

The question wasn't about "corporate cost-benefit analysis", it was simply (and vaguely) will society accepts deaths caused by robots, and the answer simply admitted the reality that no technology is perfect. What should the answer have been?

condiment 1y ago

Trains and airplanes are fundamentally different from cars. A car accident is unlikely to kill you. A plane crash will. A car accident is unlikely to kill your entire family. A plane crash will. The standard is higher for these modes of transportation because the consequences of individual incidents are higher. People innately recognize this; we only have one life; one family.

bluGill 1y ago
A train or airplane is much less likely to kill me than a car. Just if there is an accident those two modes are more likely to kill, but they are massively much less likely to be in an accident in the first place.