Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

771–780 of 822 posts

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#771

Post by bradleybuda »

giantg2 wrote: post #234

Better driver education and higher test standards would save lives too. So would banning alcohol. None of these solutions, including automated cars, will be mandated any time soon. It's not enough to have data, you also have to have societal buy-in. Interesting that Waymo chooses to compare accident rates with the average driver vs the rideshare drivers their cars replace. The numbers wouldn't look as impressive beca…

I agree. It's too easy to get a license and too hard to lose one. You should lobby your government for these things. I have; good luck.

Meanwhile, profit-driven private industry is actually out there making things better.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#772

Post by demo4567 »

bretthoerner wrote: post #303
lelanthran wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The most likely scenario at this point it: > - autonomous cars cause fewer accidents > - so either insurance will be cheaper for them > - AND/OR human driving car insurance goes up If they were going to do that, they would have done it by now for those drivers opting into the insurance monitor device: they can literally tell that you're a driver that never took a risk, never got into a situation to brake hard, neve…

It's a pool. If all the drunks switch to autonomous vehicles then we all win. If all the school teachers switch to autonomous vehicles then the drunks lose. In my own life I see the most reasonable/thoughtful drivers raving about autonomous driving and the most reckless ones ranting against it. YMMV.

yeah. no. i have had autonomoous driving trying to kill me and I don't want the car telling me where I can and cannot go. eff you and your authoritarian scaredy cat BS

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#774

Post by sanex »

tsimionescu wrote: post #335
PorciiVorbesc wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You could always invest in actual public transport & sane infrastructure, rather than relying on clogging the streets up with more cars, autonomous or otherwise So what should the disabled people do until that amazing public transport infrastructure materializes, if it ever even does for them at all? Sit at home and wait? I dislike this type of patronizing superficial handweaving advice that is disconnected from the…

> So what should the disabled people do until that amazing public transport infrastructure materializes, if it ever even does for them at all? Sit at home and wait? No, the point was that instead of cities waiting until self-driving cars become an option to help get rid of terrible drivers, the cities could invest in public transportation today, and get better road safety that way.

[flagged]

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#775

Post by alephnerd »

demo4567 wrote: post #773

PHASING OUT HUMAN DRIVING IS ADDING A MIDDLE MAN TO GO FROM POINT A TO POINT B AND HAVING TO PAY THEM AND BE TRACKED ALL THE TIME. HOW IS ANYONE OKAY WITH THIS?

CAPS LOCK DOES NOTHING TO HELP YOUR ARGUMENT. IT IS THE FORUM EQUIVALENT OF YELLING

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#776

Post by tra3 »

demo4567 wrote: post #773

PHASING OUT HUMAN DRIVING IS ADDING A MIDDLE MAN TO GO FROM POINT A TO POINT B AND HAVING TO PAY THEM AND BE TRACKED ALL THE TIME. HOW IS ANYONE OKAY WITH THIS?

Like taking a train or a plane or a bus? Like having to purchase a vehicle? Like having phone companies know which cell tower you're connected to?

It's a valid point you're making, but we can legislate against the abuse you're implying. We've got privacy laws for a reason.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#777

Post by jeffbee »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #755
jeffbee wrote: post #410

I love this conversation as the death spasm of driver culture. On the one hand, a lot of hard data. On the other hand, myths.

Ai is slaughtering the identities of everyone around it. Years of skills, dedication and experience rendered useless by a genuinely superior AI. So what do people do? They have to deny it. They have to make up stories, they have to lie to themselves. Normally HN is all about being data driven and logical. But you can see here that with AI this isn’t the case. When your identity is about to be eviscerated all logic go…

Good take.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#778

Post by epgui »

ozim wrote: post #142
Terr_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming you're already stuck with such a vehicle, is there any benefit to a dashcam that captures the alert-noises to prove the that you, the driver, never chose to brake unsafely? I realize this relies heavily on the questionable sanity and ethics of insurance companies. Even if they agree you aren't personally at fault, they'd probably just increase the premiums for everyone with that model, rather than sue the ca…

Never hear of someone who was rear ended being liable. Guy behind should keep a distance that allows him reacting in time and he is responsible for keeping that distance. The same for skiing you don’t have eyes on the back of your head, one behind you is responsible for not crashing into you. In car you have rear mirrors but if you have something in front of you and breaking you are not going to look in the mirrors.

Yeah, I suppose this could vary by geography, but my understanding is that in Canada, you're nearly-absolutely responsible for hitting anything in front of you, and nearly-absolutely not responsible for anything hitting you from behind.

The only exception I could think of would be if someone intentionally jumped in front of your car, or if you did a patently and clearly unsafe maneuver, but even then I think there'd be a sort of rebuttable presumption of fault.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#779

Post by maerF0x0 »

mostly_harmless wrote: post #106

Fatality data is extremely skewed. 44% of drivers aren't using a seatbelt, 29% are speeding related, I recall alcohol involvement being about 30%, though it's not listed in the link I checked. About 20% of automobile fatalities aren't in cars but are pedestrians or bicyclists struck by cars (add another 16% if you want to include motorcyclists, though only half of which involve another vehicle). I recall the percenta…

Another wonderful usecase of safety, when the elderly get too old to drive themselves an autocar may improve the quality of life of later years. I sure hope it's around by the time I'm too old to drive.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#780

Post by philipallstar »

simianwords wrote: post #554
alexgoodhart wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using public safety as a cudgel to mandate adherence to any technology is a nonstarter. The imposition is huge. We’re talking about privacy, movement and its relationships with housing/work/family management/safety. At the very least, it needs to be plainly stated that this concept is not being studied out of curiosity. A few companies have a gigantic investment in seeing massive, government-facilitated adoption that…

i'm kinda hating how privacy is becoming a boogeyman to oppose literally anything. i'm predicting that public will catch hold of this rhetoric eventually. literally any. single. thing. gets opposed on privacy grounds. and its a good move because technology by definition works by passing information around so it lends to being opposed this way everywhere. i think Foucault is partly responsible for this with his whole…

> i'm kinda hating how privacy is becoming a boogeyman to oppose literally anything

It isn't.

Post reply on HN