521–530 of 556 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know..but you could have time off... I mean you're not driving 24/7...maybe when not needed for transport you live in VR space.
You could also be turned off and reset. Why waste the power? Who will know? Is it even a crime to kill a simulated person?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, why would I prefer a driverless taxi if an electric car with a human driver costs no more? I believe the number one cause of death for Americans under the age of 30 is traffic accidents.[0] It's around 40,000 deaths per year (in the US alone). Cars are getting safer, but humans aren't getting better drivers. Individuals humans will get better with experience, but experienced drivers cycle out and new drivers…
> I believe the number one cause of death for Americans under the age of 30 is traffic accidents. Traffic accidents are not included in the "accidental death" category, and haven't been for as long as I've been looking. From page 2 of the full report[0]: "For example, Malignant neoplasms of the trachea, bronchus and lung (lung cancer) and Motor vehicle accidents are not rankable causes of death (see “Procedures for r…
Being #13 overall definitely doesn't preclude them from being #1 in younger age brackets. Most of the deaths from cancer and heart disease are the older age brackets ("Diseases of the heart" are 23% of overall deaths, but only 2-4% for each age rank among minors; ~6% in the 20s-30s). "Accidents (unintentional injuries)" is the #1 listed cause for every male and female age bracket until the 45–54 bracket (pp 19-22) (this precludes infants under 1). The question is what portion of those were traffic accidents.
If we assume traffic accidents at the same rate among all age groups, then we have 36,000/169,936[0] = ~20%. That drops it to around fifth place for most of the younger brackets. (Personally, I'd guess it's higher for at least the 15-19 age bracket, but that's just a guess at this point.)
So, okay, fine, traffic accidents is roughly sixth most common cause of death for kids in the US, and thirteenth for all ages. The original question was why we'd prefer that if the cost is the same. Even while my numbers were way off, it's still a big benefit.
> Please also keep in mind that 1 out of every 6 traffic fatalities in the United States was a pedestrian.
I'm assuming a significant portion of pedestrians traffic fatalities are drivers killing pedestrian, not pedestrians...I don't even know what to put as the alternative. Stepping in front of a bicycle?
My position is not that human-driven cars kill human drivers -- it's that human-driven cars kill lots of people. If drivers only ended up harming themselves, I'd be slightly less concerned about it.
[0] Just grabbing most recent number from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, why would I prefer a driverless taxi if an electric car with a human driver costs no more? I believe the number one cause of death for Americans under the age of 30 is traffic accidents.[0] It's around 40,000 deaths per year (in the US alone). Cars are getting safer, but humans aren't getting better drivers. Individuals humans will get better with experience, but experienced drivers cycle out and new drivers…
> Self-driving cars can share their experience perfectly, I'm not a machine learning expert, but I'm not convinced this assertion is well grounded. If you have two ML systems, I don't know of a simple, general, reliable way to transfer the "knowledge" stored in one to the other without disrupting the "knowledge" already within the other. If you mean just copying the video feed, sure, but that's only one input variabl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see a lot of talk about how society will not accept machines that might make mistakes, but I don't think society has actually had a chance to make its opinions known yet. Society isn't the noisy voices and the click bait headlines, it is people who mostly quickly adapted to elevators and lifts and planes and trains, all of which are vehicles that have killed people while operating autonomously. I expect you will fi…
Yup, I'd say it is more that corporations aren't ready to take the legal risk of SDC. If I get into a car accident, my insurance company gets the fun job of litigating. Either I or the other driver will be found liable. If the car was driving, however, and it makes a mistake then the manufacturer could be held liable. And since car manufacturers have deep pockets, you can bet they'll get sued. This is why manufacture…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if these 'Auto-Pilot' cars are actually being controlled remotely from some off-shore ops center.
In fact at least one company is looking into this, having the car self-navigate as much as possible, but when confronted with a difficult situation like construction or debris in the road it would call back to a remote operator who would take over until you are past the difficult situation. They also saved the operators response so when the next car hits the same obstacle and calls back the next operator can just rep…
You don't even need the autonomous driving part at all. Just being able to remote drive a truck would disrupt the industry, as you can pay your drivers less and get better results giving them six hour shifts in front of a monitor and letting them go home to their families when it is over. Then you can lower the headcount by slaving trucks so one driver is handling a train of 5 or 6 on a highway. All doable now with existing technology, with the extra risk being how reliable your comms are.
Self-driving got taken over by the "fake it til you make it" crowd. Uber, Cruise (go find Cruise's original demo video and marketing claims), Tesla, etc. Only Google/Waymo approached it as a hard problem, and only Waymo has something that's deployed, even in a limited way, without a "safety driver". Somebody will probably make it work, but it may come from some boring old company like Ford or Continental or Fujitsu.…
Einride got driverless trucks running on a public road: https://insideevs.com/news/350293/autonomous-einride-t-pod-p...
If we expect driverless cars to be further delayed and we continue building our cities to encourage micromobility (bikes, electric scooters, segregated lanes, car free streets, etc.) then at which point does the value of the driverless car become moot because we no longer drive? Does this sound unlikely? Consider European cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam which have encouraged cycling over the last two decades and…
This is kind of silly. It's nice to imagine a world where people don't need cars. But most/all european cities, many of which we laid out before cars, still have cars. We all have cars because cars are incredibly useful; Got 4 young kids and you need to get groceries for the week? You're not going to bicycle them to the store and all that food home again in the mountains. Live in the city and want to go hiking 20 mil…
In the meantime, not having a vehicle for errands is real life for ~20% of the population, and if you add safely (maintained vehicle) or responsibly (insured, with a valid license, no warrants), this number quickly approaches 50% of the population.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-inco...
And then you bring up hiking, which ~15% of the U.S. population participates in anyway (and it's at its height)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Live in the city and want to go hiking 20 miles away?" Yes, you want to use a car in this case. But, in the life I imagine, I would rent a car. I dislike driving intensely, but I can see use-cases in which cars are necessary. However, Americans have been largely forced into car ownership, despite the expense and hassle of owning one. A reduction in car ownership coupled with more pedestrian-friendly community design…
"Options for people who don't want/need to have a car" is very different than "maybe no one should have a car". Cars are pretty necessary if you have kids in most of the US, for example. While there's an argument that much of the US was designed in a way that forces this necessity, the reality is that the road system in US exists, the US is gigantic , and mobility within the US is generally considered desirable. It's…
Yet, there is a significant portion of the US population that can not afford a car, and the next level to afford to maintain a car, or afford to adequately insure a car.
And yes, it hurts economic mobility https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-inco...
If we expect driverless cars to be further delayed and we continue building our cities to encourage micromobility (bikes, electric scooters, segregated lanes, car free streets, etc.) then at which point does the value of the driverless car become moot because we no longer drive? Does this sound unlikely? Consider European cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam which have encouraged cycling over the last two decades and…
Not everyone lives in cycling distance to work, not all are fit enough to cycle regularly (old age, disability, obesity). In many countries such people use public transportation, but that's crowded and inconvenient for the richer folks who can afford cars. Why do you think people still have cars in Amsterdam?
Obesity is one thing promoting modes of transportation other than driving is a hope to solve; where the developed world is showing highest rates ever and scientific studies showing that the chair of a car is unhealthy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Feeling" has nothing to do with the issue. Current autopilots are generally unable to cope with equipment failures. The pilots are primarily there to deal with unexpected failure modes.
Most of the failures have multiple backups, and most scenarios are also accounted for on how to handle them. So maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see how autopilots couldn't be programmed to handle most kinds of failures (engine failure etc). Unless the failure is with the autopilot itself of course (which could have backup systems) Most of the accidents with airplanes are caused by humans ( https://www.boeing.com/commerc…
For a prime example, see US Airways Flight 1549. The pilots Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger and Jeffrey Skiles intentionally disregarded part of the official procedure for handling a dual engine failure because they realized it wasn't suitable for their current situation.
FAA Part 121 flights are already so safe that trying to improve safety by taking humans out of the loop would be nonsensical. In some recent years literally more people in the US have died by falling out of bed than were killed in commercial aviation accidents.