People who enjoy driving will have to do is in such way as to not endanger regular commuters
As if the two groups don't overlap! As if the regular commuters are completely innocent and the people who enjoy driving both have and cause all the accidents! As if robocars could not and would not have any accidents! As if people who commute to work by car are forced into it and have no choice about being road users!
I disagree with all four implied statements.
a good half of driving accident victims did not and could not see it coming.
Then why do so many other countries have fewer road deaths per hundred thousand people and also fewer road deaths per miles travelled?
See how the USA is way down in 40th position - more dense countries, countries with more dangerous driving weather, other big sparse countries, other rich countries, much poorer countries are all above the USA. Switch the table to deaths per vehicle miles travelled and the USA is still barely in the top 10.
Just luck? Or better driver training so their drivers can see potential accidents coming and avoid them?
I know, arguing not hacker news. But someone is wrong on the internet. It might even be me!
I expect "no human drivers permitted on public roads" to be the law because human drivers are fallible. Robots are also fallible, but they tend to accumulate their lessons across entire robot population (at least within one manufacturing company) whereas each new human driver needs to be taught anew. Even well-taught, humans are still prone to errors and it's only a matter of time before standard robot is 10 times safer than 95th percentile of drivers.
The only problem with robots is systemic risk - some sort of common bug (e.g. Y2K) that would take out many machines at once or another thing that fails in a non-graceful manner. Car companies are not strangers to designing proper failure modes so I think it will pan out ok in the end, but software engineers aren't as good at it yet so we do have that risk for a while.
I think the implication was that having any human drivers on the roads negates a lot of the potential benefits and safety provided by robotic cars. The drivers don't have to be bad to be worse than a robot. Driving a car yourself might go the way of riding a horse for transportation. You can still do it, and have lots of fun, just not down most city streets! Robocars would still have accidents, but hopefully more on the frequency of planes :)
As if the two groups don't overlap! As if the regular commuters are completely innocent and the people who enjoy driving both have and cause all the accidents! As if robocars could not and would not have any accidents! As if people who commute to work by car are forced into it and have no choice about being road users!
I disagree with all four implied statements.
a good half of driving accident victims did not and could not see it coming.
Then why do so many other countries have fewer road deaths per hundred thousand people and also fewer road deaths per miles travelled?
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/s...
See how the USA is way down in 40th position - more dense countries, countries with more dangerous driving weather, other big sparse countries, other rich countries, much poorer countries are all above the USA. Switch the table to deaths per vehicle miles travelled and the USA is still barely in the top 10.
Just luck? Or better driver training so their drivers can see potential accidents coming and avoid them?
I know, arguing not hacker news. But someone is wrong on the internet. It might even be me!