←back to thread

410 points jjulius | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
AlchemistCamp ◴[] No.41889077[source]
The interesting question is how good self-driving has to be before people tolerate it.

It's clear that having half the casualty rate per distance traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable. How about a quarter? Or a tenth? Accidents caused by human drivers are one of the largest causes of injury and death, but they're not newsworthy the way an accident involving automated driving is. It's all too easy to see a potential future where many people die needlessly because technology that could save lives is regulated into a greatly reduced role.

replies(20): >>41889114 #>>41889120 #>>41889122 #>>41889128 #>>41889176 #>>41889205 #>>41889210 #>>41889249 #>>41889307 #>>41889331 #>>41889686 #>>41889898 #>>41890057 #>>41890101 #>>41890451 #>>41893035 #>>41894281 #>>41894476 #>>41895039 #>>41900280 #
becquerel ◴[] No.41889122[source]
My dream is of a future where humans are banned from driving without special licenses.
replies(2): >>41889187 #>>41889200 #
gambiting ◴[] No.41889187[source]
So.........like right now you mean? You need a special licence to drive on a public road right now.
replies(3): >>41889262 #>>41889312 #>>41894441 #
nkrisc ◴[] No.41889312[source]
The problem is it’s obviously too easy to get one and keep one, based on some of the drivers I see on the road.
replies(1): >>41889365 #
1. gambiting ◴[] No.41889365{3}[source]
That sounds like a legislative problem where you live, sure it can be fixed by overbearing technology but we already have all the tools we need to fix it, we are just choosing not to for some reason.