• LittleLordLimerick
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    That’s not the argument for self-driving cars at all. The argument for self-driving cars is that people hate driving because it’s a huge stressful time sink. An additional benefit of self-driving cars is that computers have better reaction times than humans and don’t stare at a phone screen while flying down the freeway at 70 mph.

    If we find that SDC get in, say, 50% fewer serious accidents per 100 miles than human drivers, that would mean tens of thousands fewer deaths and hundreds of thousands fewer injuries. Your objection to that is that it’s not good enough because you demand zero serious accidents? That’s preposterous.

    • Mkengine@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Is there any progress on the question who is responsible for such accidents? Of course less accidents are desirable, but if the manufacturer suddenly is responsible for deaths and not the human behind the wheel, then there is a really big incentive to have zero serious accidents. If the system is not perfect from the start, someday the industry and the government have to decide how to handle this.

      • LittleLordLimerick
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I believe the manufacturer should be liable for damage caused by their product due to manufacturing defects and faulty software. This incentivizes manufacturers to make the safest product possible to reduct their liability. If it turns out that it’s not possible for manufacturers to make these cars safe enough to be profitable, then so be it.