5 ms·

I have said for a while now that self driving cars do not need to be perfect. They will have accidents, of a different type than humans have, and sometimes they

I have said for a while now that self driving cars do not need to be perfect. They will have accidents, of a different type than humans have, and sometimes they will be ones that most humans would avoid. What they do need to be is better than humans overall, and then it would make sense for them to be allowed onto the road. When they get far safer than humans, phasing out of human driving will make sense. They reached that point a while ago, now we just need legislation and public opinion to catch up.

LtWorf 7d ago
They reached that point on very very limited scenario and conditions.
oersted 6d ago
Yes but in practice the pushback is more about the shift on who is held responsible and who has the control to prevent a crash. People understandably prefer to keep control of their own safety, even if on average they are worse at it. Because individuals that do care about safety can actually do many things to lower the risks well below the statistics, and likely remain much better than self-driving. There’s also the question of responsibility and liability. In society we have such pressures so that there’s an incentive to continually reduce risks. It is dangerous to shift the responsibility to fast-growth tech companies that will care much less about individual accidents than the drivers involved, and are more capable of absorbing liability without substantive remediation. Safety is outsourced in many contexts (aviation, police, military…), but it has to be substantially better than what the individual can achieve on their own. For instance, due to the expertise required, or because you can achieve more through coordinated collective action. And there has to be very high trust in the companies involved, the regulatory systems around them, and the technologies employed.
- My_Name 6d ago
  I completely agree. I feel a lot of pushback is likely to be coming from insurance companies who very much like being able to hike up your premium because they have decided that you as a person are a bad risk. When the entity that had the accident is some software and sensors made by a company, they can't do that. I disagree that the safety concerns have to be on an individual basis, no other driving regulation works on that basis. They are based on the statistical likelihood of an overall reduction in damages or risk. You as an individual might be safe driving 10-20mph over the limit, but the limit is there to cover a variety of road conditions and road users. The self driving system just has to fulfil those criteria, being that overall having it is safer for the average road user than not. It, also, is not the fast-growth tech companies that decide that.
  - oersted 6d ago
    These are good points. I still think that, even if in principle it should be enough for self-driving to be a bit more safe on average, in practice there’s a much larger barrier of acceptance. Individuals are unlikely to give up their control unless the alternative is clearly substantially better. And, as you say, there are other larger interests beyond individual preferences that need to be overcome too. Regardless, as we have seen many times with other technologies, I think that convenience will be a much stronger driver of self-driving acceptance than the safety benefit.
tonymet 6d ago
Which people? The bottom 20th percentile? 50th? Where do you draw the line? Wherever you draw it, there is a group of 10-100 million drivers who will be less safe (to themselves and others) in an automated vehicle. There’s reason to believe that automated vehicles exceed bad drivers, and may improve , but it’s no guarantee that they will exceed very good or excellent drivers.
- My_Name 6d ago
  It is the same as speed limits. Very good or excellent drivers can drive much faster than the speed limit and be just as safe as the average driver at the speed limit, or a very poor driver going much slower than the speed limit. These things are set so that, on average, everyone is safer. If allowing self driving cars raises the safety of everyone on average, it makes sense. Personally, I would be in favour of everyone having to either use a self driving car or gain an advanced driving certificate so they could drive manually. One that only 10-20% of people could pass, this would include an in depth theoretical section as well as a 2-3 hour driving test.
  - tonymet 5d ago
    Speed limits have the ability to make everyone safer. An excellent driver, who is safe at 80, will be safer at 65. mandating automated driving makes excellent drivers less safe. An excellent driver, who has better skills than poor drivers, and automated driving systems, will be less safe when riding in the automated car.

LtWorf 7d ago

They reached that point on very very limited scenario and conditions.

oersted 6d ago

Yes but in practice the pushback is more about the shift on who is held responsible and who has the control to prevent a crash. People understandably prefer to keep control of their own safety, even if on average they are worse at it. Because individuals that do care about safety can actually do many things to lower the risks well below the statistics, and likely remain much better than self-driving. There’s also the question of responsibility and liability. In society we have such pressures so that there’s an incentive to continually reduce risks. It is dangerous to shift the responsibility to fast-growth tech companies that will care much less about individual accidents than the drivers involved, and are more capable of absorbing liability without substantive remediation. Safety is outsourced in many contexts (aviation, police, military…), but it has to be substantially better than what the individual can achieve on their own. For instance, due to the expertise required, or because you can achieve more through coordinated collective action. And there has to be very high trust in the companies involved, the regulatory systems around them, and the technologies employed.

My_Name 6d ago
I completely agree. I feel a lot of pushback is likely to be coming from insurance companies who very much like being able to hike up your premium because they have decided that you as a person are a bad risk. When the entity that had the accident is some software and sensors made by a company, they can't do that. I disagree that the safety concerns have to be on an individual basis, no other driving regulation works on that basis. They are based on the statistical likelihood of an overall reduction in damages or risk. You as an individual might be safe driving 10-20mph over the limit, but the limit is there to cover a variety of road conditions and road users. The self driving system just has to fulfil those criteria, being that overall having it is safer for the average road user than not. It, also, is not the fast-growth tech companies that decide that.
- oersted 6d ago
  These are good points. I still think that, even if in principle it should be enough for self-driving to be a bit more safe on average, in practice there’s a much larger barrier of acceptance. Individuals are unlikely to give up their control unless the alternative is clearly substantially better. And, as you say, there are other larger interests beyond individual preferences that need to be overcome too. Regardless, as we have seen many times with other technologies, I think that convenience will be a much stronger driver of self-driving acceptance than the safety benefit.

tonymet 6d ago

Which people? The bottom 20th percentile? 50th? Where do you draw the line? Wherever you draw it, there is a group of 10-100 million drivers who will be less safe (to themselves and others) in an automated vehicle. There’s reason to believe that automated vehicles exceed bad drivers, and may improve , but it’s no guarantee that they will exceed very good or excellent drivers.

My_Name 6d ago
It is the same as speed limits. Very good or excellent drivers can drive much faster than the speed limit and be just as safe as the average driver at the speed limit, or a very poor driver going much slower than the speed limit. These things are set so that, on average, everyone is safer. If allowing self driving cars raises the safety of everyone on average, it makes sense. Personally, I would be in favour of everyone having to either use a self driving car or gain an advanced driving certificate so they could drive manually. One that only 10-20% of people could pass, this would include an in depth theoretical section as well as a 2-3 hour driving test.
- tonymet 5d ago
  Speed limits have the ability to make everyone safer. An excellent driver, who is safe at 80, will be safer at 65. mandating automated driving makes excellent drivers less safe. An excellent driver, who has better skills than poor drivers, and automated driving systems, will be less safe when riding in the automated car.