3 ms·

Ignorant? I think not. I do not want to trust a mechanical system to see me, identify me, and stop a vehicle doing 100+ kph in time not to kill me. The car i

Ignorant? I think not. I do not want to trust a mechanical system to see me, identify me, and stop a vehicle doing 100+ kph in time not to kill me. The car in the OP is not one that supplements a driver's vision and reaction time. It is a system that totally replaces it. Would anyone here be willing to stand on a road with their backs to an oncoming car without human supervision? Thousands of times. In all weather conditions. When the car's systems are 5/10/25 years out of date? That's what motorcyclists must do at every red light: trust that the car approaching behind them stops in time. Pedestrians at crosswalks have the advantage of signing, lights and cross-streets to alert the system to the possible presence of humans. Motorcyclists must stand in random places unprotected (ie stop and go traffic).

UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
>Would anyone here be willing to stand on a road with their backs to an oncoming car without human supervision? Once the cars have been rigorously tested, yes!! I'd much prefer that to a drunk guy swatting at his kids in the back seat while chatting on the phone. (If you don't think that scenario that happens regularly, you are mistaken)
scott_s 12y ago
At the moment, no, I am not willing to do that. Because the technology is not yet good enough. But it may be possible for the technology to be that good. Let's assume that in the future, we have tests after tests showing that the automated systems have better performance than humans. Then, yes, I would be willing. In that case, we have two faulty navigation systems, but one out-performs the other.
bryondowd 12y ago
I fixed this for you: ____ Ignorant? I think not. I do not want to trust a typical driver to see me, identify me, and stop a vehicle doing 100+ kph in time not to kill me. Would anyone here be willing to stand on a road with their backs to an oncoming car with human supervision? Thousands of times. In all weather conditions. When the driver's credentials and eyeglass prescription are 5/10/25 years out of date? That's what motorcyclists must do at every red light: trust that the car approaching behind them stops in time. ____ Personally. As soon as computers can be proven to have a catastrophic error rate lower than human drivers, statistically, I'm all for it. From there, it can only get better. And in case it isn't obvious, my point is your argument didn't really have anything specific to machine vs human driver. It's essentially saying "I don't trust robots, because they aren't humans." The only thing that should really matter is results, and that will only be determined by testing and comparing.
JshWright 12y ago
You put _way_ too much faith in human beings... I spend a lot of time hanging out in the middle of the road in less than ideal conditions. The leading cause of death and injury for paramedics are motor vehicle accidents. Speaking for myself, I eagerly await the day when we get to remove the least reliable element of most cars... the driver.

UrMomReadsHN 12y ago

>Would anyone here be willing to stand on a road with their backs to an oncoming car without human supervision? Once the cars have been rigorously tested, yes!! I'd much prefer that to a drunk guy swatting at his kids in the back seat while chatting on the phone. (If you don't think that scenario that happens regularly, you are mistaken)

scott_s 12y ago

At the moment, no, I am not willing to do that. Because the technology is not yet good enough. But it may be possible for the technology to be that good. Let's assume that in the future, we have tests after tests showing that the automated systems have better performance than humans. Then, yes, I would be willing. In that case, we have two faulty navigation systems, but one out-performs the other.

bryondowd 12y ago

I fixed this for you: ____ Ignorant? I think not. I do not want to trust a typical driver to see me, identify me, and stop a vehicle doing 100+ kph in time not to kill me. Would anyone here be willing to stand on a road with their backs to an oncoming car with human supervision? Thousands of times. In all weather conditions. When the driver's credentials and eyeglass prescription are 5/10/25 years out of date? That's what motorcyclists must do at every red light: trust that the car approaching behind them stops in time. ____ Personally. As soon as computers can be proven to have a catastrophic error rate lower than human drivers, statistically, I'm all for it. From there, it can only get better. And in case it isn't obvious, my point is your argument didn't really have anything specific to machine vs human driver. It's essentially saying "I don't trust robots, because they aren't humans." The only thing that should really matter is results, and that will only be determined by testing and comparing.

JshWright 12y ago

You put _way_ too much faith in human beings... I spend a lot of time hanging out in the middle of the road in less than ideal conditions. The leading cause of death and injury for paramedics are motor vehicle accidents. Speaking for myself, I eagerly await the day when we get to remove the least reliable element of most cars... the driver.