Why haven’t they banned all cars
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater!
Comment on GM’s big bet on driverless cars turns sour
scarabic@lemmy.world 11 months ago
The decision came over a month after an incident in which a hit-and-run victim became pinned under a Cruise vehicle and then was dragged 20 feet to the side of the road. As a result, California Department of Motor Vehicles suspended Cruise’s permit to operate driverless cars in the state.
Why haven’t they banned all cars over the many more incidents caused by human drivers? Including incidents where pedestrians are killed deliberately, as with the cases where idiots drove straight into protest crowds?
If we’re ever going to get past the lethality of human drivers, we need to at least judge the technology by the same standards.
We’re at 80% with human drivers and they want to throw out driverless tech because it’s 92% and not 100%.
elephantium@lemmy.world 11 months ago
hansl@lemmy.world 11 months ago
That’s what they’re doing about driverless cars though. Instead of looking at the data overall they banned all cars from a company as a result of a single event.
I’m not saying driverless cars are there or they aren’t. But let’s not pretend this is a cool headed data driven decision. This is political.
soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
It’s the same set of reasons we don’t have miniture nuclear reactors creating clean energy around the place
scarabic@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I think we should actually ban the production of metals. Between the deaths from guns and cars, metal is a hazardous technology that needs to be proven safer before we unleash it upon our populace, much though the steel billionaires would love to profit from it while people die.
bitwolf@lemmy.one 11 months ago
There’s a high probability that if that taxi was a normal human driver they also would have hit and ran like the actual offending driver in the black sedan.