Quote:
Originally Posted by ZBB
Has nothing to do with what Musk tells me (as if I have regular meetings white him  ). |
Something convinced you that it's reasonable to turn over your driving responsibilities to your car and, presumably, doing so would not bring about a greater risk of killing someone than you driving on your own. Otherwise, you wouldn't do it, right? I am curious what it was that convinced you.
Quote:
|
Because the car shows little people icons on the display (along with cars, trucks, motorcycles). When we get home and people get out of the car before I pull into the garage, it shows them immediately. If it can see them to display them, it can take action.
|
1) Are you sure it recognizes pedestrians as often as you do (or, more importantly, will), in as wide ranging of conditions as you do (again, or will), and does so (or, will) early enough to "take action"? What makes you believe that?
2) "take action" means it will take the correct action in response to each pedestrian it identifies as often as you would? What makes you believe that?
3) I originally commented on how well it works until it runs over someone, to which you responded, or hits something, which you were silent on and has been ignored in the subsequent discussion. If the car has to make a choice between running over someone or hitting something else, do you think it is as or more likely to choose hitting the right person or thing compared to you making that choice, whether reflexively or consciously? Why do you think that?
I am not suggesting that a car operating under the system is not safe enough that it doesn't present an unreasonably larger risk than a completely human controlled car.
I'm saying that there is no publicly available data, there is no certification by an independent body, and there are no agreed upon standards upon which to certify against.
There is only a manufacturer telling you, "Hey check this shit out! Ain't it swell?" At least, that's all I know about it. NHTSA and other independent bodies don't even have a preliminary cache of scientifically sound data to hazard a guess whether these technologies are "safe enough" to deploy in public. Remember when the Surgeon General issues a warning about the health threat posed by cigarette smoking? The manufacturers disputed the underlying science for decades after because they had something to lose.
Full disclosure, I have no problem with you choosing to risk your life, well being, or property, but it pisses the fuck out of me that others choose to risk my well being, the well being of my family, and the well being of those I care about without our consent.
If I am missing something persuasive that these systems are as safe as humans driving, please show me. I would really like to stop and move on.