Quote:
Originally Posted by unluky
Explain?
1/2 the deaths is 1/2 the deaths - correct? What difference does it make who is responsible?
Now I know us idiots humans will HAVE to have someone to blame for any failure like always, but again - a gain is a gain in my book. If that can actually happen or not remains to be seen - but my point is - if they are always safer, yet still kill people - do we accept that?
My bet is we as humans cannot. If a asteroid hits the earth, we would need someone to go to jail because they "should have known".
|
The problem with deaths related to traffic accidents is mostly the fault of one or both of the driver's involved. Most accidents are the result of either lack of proper training/talent, or lack of attention or sometimes both. We as a society do a terrible job at driver training and let even the most untalented people have licenses to drive. Granted, some small percentage are the result of poor road design, or poor road maintenance, but the vast majority of accidents are caused by driver error.
But ultimately preventing traffic accident deaths is the personal responsibility of each driver. Regardless of road design or condition, it is the driver's responsibility to prevent his car for being in the same space of another vehicle at the same time.
The idea behind autonomous driving is to remove the fallibility of humans for control of the vehicle and replace it with a suite of sensors and artificial intelligence. Yet computers and software are not infallible, nor are sensors. Anyone who works in the technology field knows this. So like I said, under the same conditions I don't think computer controlled driver automation will cut the traffic death rate in half. What will happen is the personal responsibility aspect of the act of driving is left to a machine that has no sense of personal responsibility. It then becomes a cluster-F.