They were testing. While it almost certainly wasn’t explicit, they were also testing the worst self-driving car operators. And human nature. Yes, it was their job and they should have been paying close attention every second. But if they were… Is it possible a worse (less-safe) self-driving car would have made it to market? I think fatalities from self-driving cars are going to happen regardless, whether during or after the testing process, and I also think that’s horrible…
RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The purpose of the testing was to make sure that good products made it to the market. Events like these which are human error have created bad press and have set the concept back by years. And these are not years of research, no. These are years in which the projects have been put on the back burner and we’re getting small increments like lane assist which are bad (as in poor quality) most of the time and give users the false feeling that they have a self driving car.
I don’t think that’s the correct way to look at it. Accidents will happen. It is impossible to prevent all of them. But the total number of fatalities would go down dramatically if self driving cars would be more present on the roads and that is a huge win.
42,795 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in US alone in 2022. I think that even with the current technology, this number would still be reduced by half and that is a huge win.
Empricorn@feddit.nl 1 year ago
No, the purpose of testing is to make sure profitable products make it to market. Even the most good-intentioned company (do they exist?) has their priorities set by shareholders.
For example, airlines have a set price they will pay the families of people killed by them. Is it moral? Is it ethical? No. It is financial. What can they offer, without having to enact costly behavior and safety overhauls…
RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Flying is the safest, most regulated, way of travel. Why would there be a need for an overhaul?