Will driverless cars save lives? (more than 130 collisions)
Discussion
"...more than 130 autonomous vehicle collision reports..." in California in a single year:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/two-driverless...
We're told that driverless cars will reduce collisions but,
as they do more miles, the collisions are mounting up.
And there are reported fatalities already.
Currently they are tested in the easiest environments but, as they drive more difficult roads, collisions may increase.
Conversely, as the tech improves, collisions ought to reduce.
One great advantage of driverless cars is that, when collisions occur, new software can fix each issue and updates can prevent other cars from causing the same problem.
The equivalent of a software update for human drivers, is to change behaviour by prosecuting the behaviour that causes collisions (and alter the driving test).
The problem with that is you have to accurately determine the factors that cause collisions,
and ensure that there are no negative side effects from your enforcement.
Mod note: no need to promote your YouTube video again.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/two-driverless...
We're told that driverless cars will reduce collisions but,
as they do more miles, the collisions are mounting up.
And there are reported fatalities already.
Currently they are tested in the easiest environments but, as they drive more difficult roads, collisions may increase.
Conversely, as the tech improves, collisions ought to reduce.
One great advantage of driverless cars is that, when collisions occur, new software can fix each issue and updates can prevent other cars from causing the same problem.
The equivalent of a software update for human drivers, is to change behaviour by prosecuting the behaviour that causes collisions (and alter the driving test).
The problem with that is you have to accurately determine the factors that cause collisions,
and ensure that there are no negative side effects from your enforcement.
Mod note: no need to promote your YouTube video again.
untakenname said:
Uber had some bad press five years ago when a member of staff was watching a show on their phone whilst in their autonomous car and ran down a pedestrian
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReport...
That's another driverless car fatality that I did not know about.https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReport...
I think it's too early to say if driverless cars will be safer than humans.
If there were an affordable driverless car now, I'd definitely be interested.
Set the destination, read a book and catch a nap,
but, unfortunately, I don't think that there will be an affordable driverless car in my lifetime.
The human road fatality rate is not the criteria for us when considering a driverless car.
We are responsible, sober drivers, who always wear seat belts.
So we need to remove from the human road deaths those that involved:
Drink drive, no seatbelt, reckless, stolen etc.
And motorcycle deaths need to be removed too.
There are also around 3 times the number of suicides each year than road deaths.
It is likely that some (many?) suicides by car crashes are not reported as suicide.
There's little or no data on that.
Furthermore, there are different driver skill levels.
It may be that there are a small number of drivers causing most of the serious crashes.
If we are not one of those, our crash rate may be much lower than the stats suggest.
Getting reliable evidence of the fatality rate that we face when driving is difficult enough before we even start to look at the fatality rate of driverless cars.
The one thing I've learnt about road safety, is that we cannot trust the authorities to do the job properly.
If we want to know if driverless cars save lives, we will have to do the research ourselves!
We are responsible, sober drivers, who always wear seat belts.
So we need to remove from the human road deaths those that involved:
Drink drive, no seatbelt, reckless, stolen etc.
And motorcycle deaths need to be removed too.
There are also around 3 times the number of suicides each year than road deaths.
It is likely that some (many?) suicides by car crashes are not reported as suicide.
There's little or no data on that.
Furthermore, there are different driver skill levels.
It may be that there are a small number of drivers causing most of the serious crashes.
If we are not one of those, our crash rate may be much lower than the stats suggest.
Getting reliable evidence of the fatality rate that we face when driving is difficult enough before we even start to look at the fatality rate of driverless cars.
The one thing I've learnt about road safety, is that we cannot trust the authorities to do the job properly.
If we want to know if driverless cars save lives, we will have to do the research ourselves!
bigothunter said:
One question has bothered me since you started this thread: Are driverless cars intended to save lives?
There are many advantages to driverless cars and some sit in authority's camp. Controlling traffic flow, route access and remote disablement come to mind. Workload reduces for the vehicle occupants too. Improved safety is just one of many potential objectives.
Are driverless cars justified even if KSI figures do not reduce?
Yes of coarse.There are many advantages to driverless cars and some sit in authority's camp. Controlling traffic flow, route access and remote disablement come to mind. Workload reduces for the vehicle occupants too. Improved safety is just one of many potential objectives.
Are driverless cars justified even if KSI figures do not reduce?
The advantages you mention for authority, but also for us.
Set the destination, and then we can read a book, watch a film, take a nap.
But safety is the primary criteria.
If I am at the same or greater risk with a driverless car,
would I accept that risk and pay more despite it so that I can enjoy other benefits?
Plus, driverless cars cost more.
Would I actually be safer buying a car I had to drive, and spending the saving on smoke detectors for my house?
As with anything, we can only make an informed choice if we have good evidence,
and history has shown that we cannot trust the authorities to provide it!
bigothunter said:
Dave Finney said:
But safety is the primary criteria.
Authority frequently sets-up smokescreens to hide their genuine objectives. Safety is a favourite. Are you convinced safety really is the primary objective? I'm not.I meant that safety is the primary criteria for me to get a driverless car.
bigothunter said:
You mentioned motorcycle deaths previously (death rate 40 times higher than cars). How do you propose solving that problem? Should motorcycles be banned?
By finding out when, where and why they occur,eg it may be that the increase in fatal collisions at speed camera sites primarily involves motorcyclists.
and No.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff