25 ms·

Agree, in fact driving a car on the road is a very questionable freedom. But some would like to exercise it in spite of restrictions, for a variety of reasons.

Agree, in fact driving a car on the road is a very questionable freedom. But some would like to exercise it in spite of restrictions, for a variety of reasons. I had hoped that self-driving cars prevented also others from driving their cars. But the grandparent comment just spoiled my hopes.

gcr 13y ago
One trend I see is giving up freedom for safety. I wonder if that trend will continue here.
- opminion 13y ago
  Given the toll of road traffic in terms of human lives, removing the freedom to choose the precise driving speed and the distance from the preceding vehicles and adjacent lanes, is a no brainer.
  - merlincorey 13y ago
    Because no software ever has bugs under unknown conditions. I think removing (human) brains from the equation will still result in there still being casualties - even if there are much less.
    - gcr 13y ago
      Making a change that lowers the number of failures is the definition of improvement. Devil's advocate: For humans who insist on trying to drive anyway, we can give them race tracks or have designated "Human Driving" areas. It won't ever go away completely.
      - jff 13y ago
        "Please step into the 'free speech zone', your opinions are frightening the others"
        hmsimha 13y ago
        Roads like the california 1 coastal highway, and the 89A from flagstaff to Sedona, sure people are going to want to drive those and while it may make it marginally more dangerous, it would be hard to make a case for mandatory computer control under good road conditions. In areas with significant congestion however, such as the entire city of Seattle, requiring computers to do the driving and navigation could significantly improve commute times (by, like, an order of 10 during peak hours), but only if everyone is on board.
      - lern_too_spel 13y ago
        Exactly. This is no different from smoking in designated smoking areas. I'm not going to stop you from smoking entirely, but I'm not going to put up with your sidestream smoke polluting my lungs or your awful manual driving slowing my commute and making it more dangerous.

gcr 13y ago

One trend I see is giving up freedom for safety. I wonder if that trend will continue here.

opminion 13y ago
Given the toll of road traffic in terms of human lives, removing the freedom to choose the precise driving speed and the distance from the preceding vehicles and adjacent lanes, is a no brainer.
- merlincorey 13y ago
  Because no software ever has bugs under unknown conditions. I think removing (human) brains from the equation will still result in there still being casualties - even if there are much less.
  - gcr 13y ago
    Making a change that lowers the number of failures is the definition of improvement. Devil's advocate: For humans who insist on trying to drive anyway, we can give them race tracks or have designated "Human Driving" areas. It won't ever go away completely.
    - jff 13y ago
      "Please step into the 'free speech zone', your opinions are frightening the others"
      - hmsimha 13y ago
        Roads like the california 1 coastal highway, and the 89A from flagstaff to Sedona, sure people are going to want to drive those and while it may make it marginally more dangerous, it would be hard to make a case for mandatory computer control under good road conditions. In areas with significant congestion however, such as the entire city of Seattle, requiring computers to do the driving and navigation could significantly improve commute times (by, like, an order of 10 during peak hours), but only if everyone is on board.
    - lern_too_spel 13y ago
      Exactly. This is no different from smoking in designated smoking areas. I'm not going to stop you from smoking entirely, but I'm not going to put up with your sidestream smoke polluting my lungs or your awful manual driving slowing my commute and making it more dangerous.