Isnt' that an decision based on economics (how much money we are going to lose / how many fatalities are ok), where as here we are trying to evaluate if the technology saves many more lives than what it causes? To me that is completely different thing. Due to the latest Takata airbag issue this is a bad example, or maybe a good one, but I'm sure there have been fatalities due to airbags not working as supposed to. However, I will still want a car with an airbag and not without. I also think the less control the human has, the less attention he pays to the road. The difference in this case is, that the person was paid, so it was their job? Anyway, I like the thinking of the american stand up Adam Carolla, who suggests that people would pay much more attention to driving, if we told them that 1 in every 10 airbags is just filled with moose semen...
No, they will never be 100% safe. Nor will walking down stairs, eating a sandwich, or sitting in your armchair. Nothing is 100% safe, and we will all die one day. No, the fact that people die using them is no reason for scrapping stairs, sandwiches, armchairs, or self-driving cars. The issue is about the level of risk, and whether that level is unacceptably high for any given practice. If self-driving cars were to be scrapped for that reason then motorbikes would be scrapped first.
Well, up to a point. A BSA M20 also needs to have the head removing for a decoke, spark plug replacing, tappet clearances adjusting, magneto points adjusting, etc etc on a frequent and regular basis, failing which it won't run for long. Have we become so used to not having to bother with this stuff on modern vehicles that we have forgotten the realities?
On the very day when the world's first inter city passenger railway, the Liverpool-Manchester, was inaugurated (15 September 1830), a passenger, William Huskisson MP, was killed by a train. This did not result in railways being scrapped.
Except in the case of the East London Docklands Light Railway where the trains are driven automatically, and have been ever since 1987. Many other rail system around the world have similar systems. If you jump in front of a moving train it will kill you, regardless whether it has a driver or not.
On the flip side to this, when (not if) they get the software sorted, the computer doing the driving will not be on drugs, drunk, having a blowjob, on the f*cking phone, screamimg at the kids, or wondering what to make for tea. And it will probably use indicators when negotiating a roundabout.
It will be the wealthy and important that benefit. Imagine the programming: my 200k Bentley with the CEO of large corp or that cyclist and his kid. The wall of shove that car over a cliff. Ok, extreme examples, but things that will need to have a decision path built in. VIP equals higher protection
It will be the wealthy and important that benefit. Imagine the programming: my 200k Bentley with the CEO of large corp or that cyclist and his kid. The wall of shove that car over a cliff. Ok, extreme examples, but things that will need to have a decision path built in. VIP equals higher protection
Slightly pendantic answer Peter, the question was meant to get a response (it worked) where a use of terms are often a 'turn of phrase' or an approximation to get the ball rolling. Of course everything we ever do cannot be without risk - it goes without saying (well I thought it did). We quickly learn the approximate percentage of risk involved in a task by means of instinct/survival but this percentage is too high. I don't agree with the 'motorbikes would be scrapped first' bit - makes no logical sense to me and i can't even relate it to the argument.
it's not a 'like for like' comparison I agree but it's a similar approach/similar conclusion - i.e. a safety related design should be pushed ahead with regardless of loss of life provided it's below 'X' amount because the overall saving of life would be improved.. The difference is that with self-drive the life-saving figure will be a prediction anyway - to me a loss of a life is just that and should be prevented at all costs.
The topic under discussion is scrapping self driving cars on the grounds that they entail a risk of people being killed. If that proposition had any validity, it would imply that dangerous machines which might kill people should therefore be scrapped; the argument would surely not apply exclusively to self driving cars, but not to anything else. If machines or activities were to be ranked in order of risk of death, unfortunately bikes would come well up the list and well above self driving cars. So logically if self driving cars were to be scrapped for that reason, then a fortiori bikes would have already been scrapped sooner for the same reason.
Slightly specious argument there. If the logic was compelling, it could be used to force individuals to limit themselves to using artificial climbing walls instead of risking their lives on the likes of Mt Everest ... race virtual motorcycles instead of the real thing, etc ...
Yes it could, if the logic was compelling.. But actually the logic is not compelling, so it couldn't. Which was my point.
except 'bikes' are a known quantity albeit when operated within the existing policed parameters whereas all the various self-driving systems don't appear to be so far.
