73% of Brits would not feel safe with driverless cars on the road

Sea_Shell

Just imagine... motorways, where all the traffic "talks" to each other, keeps safe distances, sticks to the speed limits, doesn't cut each other up and leaves gaps when you're joining on the slip road, or merging lanes. Bring it on.

James2k

Sea_Shell wrote: »

Just imagine... motorways, where all the traffic "talks" to each other, keeps safe distances, sticks to the speed limits, doesn't cut each other up and leaves gaps when you're joining on the slip road, or merging lanes. Bring it on.

"merge in turn" where they actually merge, in turn!:T:T

unholyangel

James2k wrote: »

people wont do that for a while. you wont trust your life to some safety system just on a whim, at least most wont. Id imagine it would be the same number as happens today with normal cars. you always get stupid people

driverless is coming, no two ways about it. and it wont be on another separate road network, which would never work anyway.

id feel safer with driverless cars than with some (a lot) of the people i see driving around today...

Except people already do step out into the road.

But the last sentence sums up all automaton needs to "win" - it doesn't need to be perfect to replace us, it just needs to be better/safer than the status quo. And given that most accidents occur through human error....

Generally, I think automatons could wreck our economy. Sure it helps keeps staffing costs down (usually the biggest overhead of any business). But automatons are being designed for every job imaginable - from surgery to cleaning. So what happens if too many jobs are replaced - for which there are no alternatives because new ones also have automatons designed for them. More people on benefits, less tax revenue (less people working, people with less money to spend in the economy - a automaton isn't paid a wage so can't spend that wage in the economy via pubs & shops to create jobs).

Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

AdrianC

AnnoyedGuy wrote: »

I have to point out though that the first fatal death caused by an autonomous car was documented this year:

When was the first non-fatal death, though?


But, no, the first documented autonomous-vehicle road death was 2016.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/06/20/the-driver-who-died-in-a-tesla-crash-using-autopilot-ignored-7-safety-warnings/



The Tempe Uber death was merely the first one where the vehicle was being driven autonomously legally.

Richard53

James2k wrote: »

people wont do that for a while. you wont trust your life to some safety system just on a whim, at least most wont.

Until the moment that they realise that car makers are terrified of being the cause of an accident (imagine the publicity) and that the car will do virtually anything to avoid running them over. After that, it's game on.

Sea_Shell wrote: »

Just imagine... motorways, where all the traffic "talks" to each other, keeps safe distances, sticks to the speed limits, doesn't cut each other up and leaves gaps when you're joining on the slip road, or merging lanes. Bring it on.

Now translate that the normal road network, like round your house or my village. Are the pedestrians, cyclists and dogs going to get chips implanted so they will interact 'correctly' with the motor traffic? Only in some sci-fi nightmare.

zagfles

unholyangel wrote: »

Except people already do step out into the road.

But the last sentence sums up all automaton needs to "win" - it doesn't need to be perfect to replace us, it just needs to be better/safer than the status quo. And given that most accidents occur through human error....

Generally, I think automatons could wreck our economy. Sure it helps keeps staffing costs down (usually the biggest overhead of any business). But automatons are being designed for every job imaginable - from surgery to cleaning. So what happens if too many jobs are replaced - for which there are no alternatives because new ones also have automatons designed for them. More people on benefits, less tax revenue (less people working, people with less money to spend in the economy - a automaton isn't paid a wage so can't spend that wage in the economy via pubs & shops to create jobs).

Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

That's what the Luddites thought 200 years ago.

ElefantEd

To understand the meaning of this statistic we would also need to know what percentage of people feel safe with cars driven by people on the road.

unholyangel

zagfles wrote: »

That's what the Luddites thought 200 years ago.

The luddites thought that having everything (as opposed to in moderation) automated could be problematic for the economy? Cool story bro.

James2k

unholyangel wrote: »

Except people already do step out into the road.
.

James2k wrote: »

Id imagine it would be the same number as happens today with normal cars.

i said that..

unholyangel

James2k wrote: »

i said that..

Sorry, my wording was abysmal. I meant they already step out into the road when they perceive less risk. You're more likely to get people stepping out at crossings, traffic lights, in slow moving traffic etc because they perceive less risk. So in other words, the less risk there is, the higher number of people you'll get willing to do it.