This article addresses a number of the questions that I have had about "self" driving cars. It has confirmed what I've always suspected, that "self" driving cars are mostly about high tech hubris, profiting off replacing the entire US auto fleet, and the desire to control the movements of the populace. There seems to be a disregard on the part of the designers for fundamental ethical questions about who dies or is injured in a collision, what is important for the car to notice, and the assumption that they can anticipate 99 and 44/100s percent of problems that lead to collisions. They claim that there will be a huge reduction in auto related deaths, but they don't go into the details. I can see where there could be fewer deaths from drunk drivers, and cellphone use while driving, but I'm not convinced that the reductions would be as large as developers claim. It might be more of a case of shifting who gets killed, like instead of killing the bike rider the drunk driver doesn't notice, to killing the child running out in the street after a ball in the rain. The whole things reeks of hubris.
A question that doesn't seem to have been addressed, who pays when a "self" driving car hits a person, who is at fault and who must pay medical care costs and compensation to the injured parties. Does the automaker who designed the system pay, or does the owner of the self driving car get stuck paying when they had little or no choice in the matter?
They talk about how it will help people with mobility issues, and I can see that as a plus, but I keep wondering how will so many people gain access to these "self" driving cars. Is everyone expected to buy their own putting ever more cars on the road, or do they text them like an Uber from some costly for profit service? Do they replace pubic transit, with cars available to anyone who needs for free or a nominal payment? Who will own and maintain all these cars? Do they expect elderly people with mobility issues on a fixed income to buy a new car so they can get around? There seems to be a high probability that "self" driving cars will exacerbate income inequality.
"the American Automobile Association says three-quarters of U.S. drivers are suspicious of self-driving vehicles."
You would never know that from reading most of the press on "self" driving cars. This is the first time I've seen any "self" driven car article admit to this. Most articles never mention a down side. I'm all for getting drunk drivers off the road and stopping people from using cellphones while driving, but I think "self"driving cars are a lot of hype and a long way from truly being ready for the road, and I suspect they will never be adequate to the task.
2 comments:
This article addresses a number of the questions that I have had about "self" driving cars. It has confirmed what I've always suspected, that "self" driving cars are mostly about high tech hubris, profiting off replacing the entire US auto fleet, and the desire to control the movements of the populace. There seems to be a disregard on the part of the designers for fundamental ethical questions about who dies or is injured in a collision, what is important for the car to notice, and the assumption that they can anticipate 99 and 44/100s percent of problems that lead to collisions. They claim that there will be a huge reduction in auto related deaths, but they don't go into the details. I can see where there could be fewer deaths from drunk drivers, and cellphone use while driving, but I'm not convinced that the reductions would be as large as developers claim. It might be more of a case of shifting who gets killed, like instead of killing the bike rider the drunk driver doesn't notice, to killing the child running out in the street after a ball in the rain. The whole things reeks of hubris.
A question that doesn't seem to have been addressed, who pays when a "self" driving car hits a person, who is at fault and who must pay medical care costs and compensation to the injured parties. Does the automaker who designed the system pay, or does the owner of the self driving car get stuck paying when they had little or no choice in the matter?
They talk about how it will help people with mobility issues, and I can see that as a plus, but I keep wondering how will so many people gain access to these "self" driving cars. Is everyone expected to buy their own putting ever more cars on the road, or do they text them like an Uber from some costly for profit service? Do they replace pubic transit, with cars available to anyone who needs for free or a nominal payment? Who will own and maintain all these cars? Do they expect elderly people with mobility issues on a fixed income to buy a new car so they can get around? There seems to be a high probability that "self" driving cars will exacerbate income inequality.
"the American Automobile Association says three-quarters of U.S. drivers are suspicious of self-driving vehicles."
You would never know that from reading most of the press on "self" driving cars. This is the first time I've seen any "self" driven car article admit to this. Most articles never mention a down side. I'm all for getting drunk drivers off the road and stopping people from using cellphones while driving, but I think "self"driving cars are a lot of hype and a long way from truly being ready for the road, and I suspect they will never be adequate to the task.
great comment, 12:03 - Thanks! I do agree and think your observations and questions are spot on!
Post a Comment