I voted no. I don't think a prototype self driven care should be allowed on public roads. And a legal question rises. If individuals need a license to drive, what about a license to auto-drive? Should there not be tests and inspections for an automatic car to be allowed to legally pilot itself? I fear that this technology could be dangerous with cars being able to be "hacked" to do dangerous things. Not only that, but there is always the error of glitching or something going wrong (car overheating and frying a cord that makes it go out of control. Technology is good, but we shouldn't rely on it too much.
I voted no. I don't think a prototype self driven care should be allowed on public roads.
digsbe said:And a legal question rises. If individuals need a license to drive, what about a license to auto-drive? Should there not be tests and inspections for an automatic car to be allowed to legally pilot itself? I fear that this technology could be dangerous with cars being able to be "hacked" to do dangerous things. Not only that, but there is always the error of glitching or something going wrong (car overheating and frying a cord that makes it go out of control. Technology is good, but we shouldn't rely on it too much.
I'm more concerned about what is best for society, rather than who I can sue. I would gladly support giving immunity to auto manufacturers for these kind of lawsuits, if it reduced the number of auto fatalities. And that isn't even considering the wealth of other societal benefits that self-driving cars will bring: Reduction in commute times, reduction in pollution, increase in parking space, eliminating the need for personal car ownership for most people, and a complete paradigm shift in the way that we design cities. That is HUGE, and is vastly more important than you being able to sue someone..
40,000 people die each year, and many hundreds of thousands more are seriously injured. That's over a dozen 9/11s every year that self-driving cars will eventually be able to prevent.
What I meant was that tossing bricks off the overpass displays a callous disregard of the safety of others, rather than an intentional act of wrongdoing.
Substitute some other form of reckless endangerment if you like...say, driving 100 miles per hour down a city street while intoxicated. Maybe you don't INTEND to hurt anyone, but you'd be showing a reckless disregard for their well-being.
That's how I think that human driving will be viewed once the technology reaches the point where self-driving cars almost never make avoidable mistakes. Once most people have made the switchover to robotic cars, I think they'll question why the few holdouts are still allowed to drive, threatening the safety of everyone
I am sure society can benefit more if we banned free speech, the right to bear and a whole bunch of other rights/freedoms and privileges. However the few who misuse those things does not justify banning people from those rights/freedoms and, privileges.The few who get into accidents does not justify big government or big business taking away your ability to drive.
jamesrage said:There are 193,552,000 licensed drivers in the US. Those 40,000 a year does not justify denying everyone else the ability to drive. What is that about .002 percent of drivers? You are saying that you want to take 99.998% of all the other peoples ability to drive over the .002% who get into fatal accidents?
jamesrage said:So you are one of those assholes on the road who thinks speed limits are speed suggestions and has no regard for other moterists? Is that what you are saying?
jamesrage said:The huge vast majority of drivers do not do that.
jamesrage said:And I am sure you anti-driving people will use incrementation to slowly take away peoples ability to drive. Either big government or big business will help you.
Sounds like a good idea if it can reduce accidents, but it's going to take a lot of time before people will start using self-driving vehicles. Not only do we need to improve the technology, but the technology has to get cheaper so it can replace ordinary cars. It probably won't happen before in 50 years or so.
You act like you have some ingrained right to drive. Think back 100 years ago...I can just see the people of their day behaving like you are: "So what, these cars can go really fast. Who needs that; my horse is fine. I never travel more than a mile from my home anyway. And in a few decades, there might be something called HIGHWAYS where I won't be allowed to travel with my horse? That's not fair; we must fight the development of these highways! I want the right to travel anywhere I want with my horse, and I want my grandkids to have that same ability."
I'm saying that eventually that's how it will probably be viewed. Just like seatbelts, or airbags, or any other safety feature. Except vastly more important than those, since not having a seatbelt/airbag only endangers yourself...and since self-driving cars (unlike those things) would have other societal benefits beyond safety.
You compare driving to a a callous disregard of the safety of others. I have no disregard for the safety of others. Perhaps for you to think of someone driving has a a callous disregard of the safety of others you must be speaking from personal experience. Do you even drive?Uhh what? Where did that come from?
It's an analogy. Reckless endangerment of the lives of others is illegal for a reason. If self-driving cars eventually become good enough to prevent most accidents, I can definitely forsee a time when the mere act of driving would be considered reckless endangerment. And that's fine.
"Anti-driving people." :lol:
All because I can think about how the world might change in a few decades, instead of thinking I have some god-given right to drive and should continue to be able to do it for all eternity, just because people have been doing it for the past 100 years.
I do not care if driving is not a ingrained right. I still do not want big government or big business dictating where, when I can go somewhere or take away my ability to drive.
jamesrage said:What .002% of the population? Taking away the ability to drive does not benefit society as a whole seeing how only .002% will be affected. .002% of 193,552,000 licensed drivers is not society.
jamesrage said:You compare driving to a a callous disregard of the safety of others. I have no disregard for the safety of others. Perhaps for you to think of someone driving has a a callous disregard of the safety of others you must be speaking from personal experience. Do you even drive?
Driving is not reckless endangerment of the lives of others. So your analogy comparing driving to throwing bricks off the overpass is seriously flawed.
jamesrage said:The huge vast majority of people are responsible drivers. So it will not have an effect on society. The fact that only .002% of licensed drivers have a traffic fatalities a year a testament to the fact that the huge vast majority of people are responsible drivers.
I do not care if driving is not a ingrained right. I still do not want big government or big business dictating where, when I can go somewhere or take away my ability to drive.
What .002% of the population? Taking away the ability to drive does not benefit society as a whole seeing how only .002% will be affected. .002% of 193,552,000 licensed drivers is not society.
You compare driving to a a callous disregard of the safety of others. I have no disregard for the safety of others. Perhaps for you to think of someone driving has a a callous disregard of the safety of others you must be speaking from personal experience. Do you even drive?
Driving is not reckless endangerment of the lives of others. So your analogy comparing driving to throwing bricks off the overpass is seriously flawed.
You think people should be banned from driving if self driving cars ever come out. Therefore anti-driving people suites you.
The huge vast majority of people are responsible drivers. So it will not have an effect on society. The fact that only .002% of licensed drivers have a traffic fatalities a year a testament to the fact that the huge vast majority of people are responsible drivers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?