Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives • Hacker News Board

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#781

Post by berytos_storm » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 4:35 PM UTC

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…

[dead]

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#782

Post by maerF0x0 » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 4:39 PM UTC

My hypothesis of why autocars will make life so much better than we're imagining, which I think a lot of negative/hater folks miss includes: (All of this is very USA centric because that's my context)

- Very old people who lose their license will get mobility back, as will blind or otherwise unlicenseable people

- Autocars can break phantom traffic jams

- They should massively reduce DUIs

- They will serve as a form of competition to airlines (and is approx as eco friendly with 2 occupants), especially for drives - Autocar can be a sort of public transit in that you will not need to own it, and it can serve many people per day. It's not likely to be mass transit though, afaik

- Autocar can make your commute be work time

- Autocar could make money while you dont use it, this is a form of "public" transportation that doesn't require massive public investment/loans. It will help decrease the net TCO of a car.

- Autocar can go home or serve others instead of needing parking garages in cities

- If it's safe to be in an autocar, very small cars can make sense again. It can help break the arms race of mass that has gone on in the USA. You dont need a big SUV to be safe from a bad driver if most cars are autocars and your autocar can dodge the bad manual drivers

- Autocar will drive fuel efficiently saving something like 20-25% of gas the vehicle would have used with an impatient human trying to save 1 minute on a 15 minute drive.

Many many more, but I hope this inspires some.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#783

Post by llbeansandrice » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 4:39 PM UTC

sanex wrote: post #774

tsimionescu wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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]

My pithy response is the same as people who have told me what to do when I try and advocate for transit. “Move somewhere else.”

I don’t find these problems unsolvable. We spend over $200 billion on roads a year. That’s almost $75bn more than the CA high speed rail. That’s project has its own problems but local buses and street cars and road diets would cost minuscule fractions of that number and improve conditions and options for nearly everyone.

Cars are clearly not a perfect solution. They are expensive and unsafe. But for some reason transit and buses have to be the perfect solution for everyone upon immediate delivery just to get the tiniest fraction of funding.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#784

Post by darkmarmot » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 4:40 PM UTC

phainopepla2 wrote: post #242

GrinningFool wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With that many accidents, I'd assume bankruptcy if she didn't. re: 2) yes that was the point. She'd have to be paying multiple thousands in an assigned-risk pool policy with that record of at-faults.

An estimated 1 in 6 drivers in Los Angeles don't have insurance. I know at least a dozen people who have been hit by uninsured drivers, and that's not counting hit and runs, who probably are also mostly uninsured. The victim's own insurance will pay if they have uninsured motorist coverage (you'd be a fool not to have it, living in LA at least), but there is basically no punishment for the uninsured driver, assuming…

Here in Washington state, it's a fine of over $500 to not be able to present insurance proof on demand when pulled over...

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#785

Post by dfxm12 » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 4:40 PM UTC

binary0010 wrote: post #110

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…

Yeah, there's a woman who is quite old and has a severe disability who drives regularly through our neighborhood who's car every few weeks has a new giant dent, missing fender, broken windshield, etc. It's sad we don't have a better way for people in these situations to do what they need without driving. It will be incredible to have autonomous driving just for older and or disabled drivers like this.

It's sad we don't have a better way for people in these situations to do what they need without driving. It will be incredible to have autonomous driving just for older and or disabled drivers like this.

We likely do. First and foremost, services already exist to have people driven to places, like uber, taxis and public transport. Other possibilities to help them do what they need to do include: neighbors, family, door dash, the mail, nurses, moving to assisted living, etc.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#786

Post by llbeansandrice » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 4:40 PM UTC

binary0010 wrote: post #703

sensanaty wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just learned helplessness. The US already spends unfathomable amounts of money and resources on car infra, and there's always some nonsensical defense like "it's just impossible to do it any other way!", as if cars are simply a law of nature. That lack of money can be solved by diverting some of the money going into roads into instead improving public transport infra. The solution should NOT be investing in d…

Americans do not care about biklanes or modifying their cities in that way, they want driverless cars and more large multilane highways/roads so that's what we will get. Americans don't like walking/biking and love cars. It's not really learned helplessness it's just what the vast majority of our country wants. Remember the majority voters voted someone in who specifically campaigned on getting out of any climate cha…

Then why is Amtrak breaking ridership records?

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#787

Post by kelipso » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 4:41 PM UTC

estearum wrote: post #697

grosswait wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. The human brain reinforces circuitry that is used often, meaning the human brain is generally quite adaptable. Ancient (and modern) hunters sit still and silent for hours waiting for game, with their brains ready to take over in an instant on the rare occasion something happens.

Right but you don't get in car accidents or near-accidents often. Ergo your brain becomes wired for the 99.9999999% of driving that is completely uneventful. Hunters are a self-selecting group of people who enjoy the activity you describe. If you don't like it or can't do it, you just don't do it. Virtually every single adult in America has to drive, however, to live a functional life.

You are avoiding cars constantly when driving with a non-zero amount of traffic. Way more incidents than predators in the savanna while doing persistence hunting.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#788

Post by maerF0x0 » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 4:44 PM UTC

fierycatnet wrote: post #42

I have a feeling that once everything goes EV and autopilot, they will start phasing out regular cars or will make it more difficult to obtain the license.

I dont think the laws will keep up. But I think the insurance rates will make it a no brainer.

just to illustrate the idea, not saying these are the exact numbers:

1. $1000 a month to drive yourself and still risk liability

2. $50 a month to have the car drive you, and GOOGL takes excess liability

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#789

Post by llbeansandrice » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 4:45 PM UTC

redox99 wrote: post #350

tsimionescu wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that good public transport makes cars unnecessary for the vast majority of everyday life in an urban setting. And, in particular, it means that taking away someone's license, even for a long period of time, doesn't have to be as crippling as it is in cities that don't have good infrastructure - hopefully leading to society being way more willing to apply drastic driving penalties to repeat offenders.

Unnecessary is a very strong word. It's also unnecessary to have your own private house, sharing it with other people would be more efficient.

Unnecessary is the perfect word. If a car is unnecessary then can simply choose to not have one. Right now a car is required to live in most places in the US.

No one is saying people must give up their cars. I just want more options.

Your housing analogy is also perfect. Nearly 80% of the land in my city is single-family zoning so it’s necessary to buy an expensive detached home to live in my city. I would like more choice in housing, transit, etc.

Unnecessary is the perfect word and it’s not strong at all

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#790

Post by madaxe_again » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 4:46 PM UTC

dfxm12 wrote: post #785

binary0010 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, there's a woman who is quite old and has a severe disability who drives regularly through our neighborhood who's car every few weeks has a new giant dent, missing fender, broken windshield, etc. It's sad we don't have a better way for people in these situations to do what they need without driving. It will be incredible to have autonomous driving just for older and or disabled drivers like this.

It's sad we don't have a better way for people in these situations to do what they need without driving. It will be incredible to have autonomous driving just for older and or disabled drivers like this. We likely do. First and foremost, services already exist to have people driven to places, like uber, taxis and public transport. Other possibilities to help them do what they need to do include: neighbors, family, do…

That really depends on where you live. Where I live there are no taxis, no public transport, no shops or services in the village - you want anything, it’s a minimum 30 minute drive to town - which includes collecting your mail, as they no longer deliver here.

And yeah, it falls on neighbours. Pretty much every day I give one old lady or another a ride to town and back. It’s a pain in the ass, I am not a fucking taxi driver, and I end up sitting around with my thumb up my ass waiting for whoever to finish whatever their errand is.