[jhpriestley]

If the goal is to prevent traffic fatalities then funding self-driving research must be one of the least effective methods. Tens of billions of dollars have been spent and no lives have been saved.

If we could achieve cycling usage at the level of the Netherlands, mass transit usage on the level of Japan, and road safety on the level of Norway then we would cut road deaths by 90%. These are ambitious goals but can actually happen and are not an open-ended research project.

[robertlagrant]

How do you know no lives have been saved? I've seen footage of Teslas autobraking to avoid collisions ahead that happen a couple of seconds later. Does that not count?

[mlindner]

Well the government isn't exactly funding self-driving very much. Indeed if the government actually had such goals then funding cycling paths, mass transit routes would certainly be better, but the government doesn't have such goals really. So companies develop technology that fits within the government funded systems that exist (namely the government heavily funds building highways and roads) so the systems must be built for that application. Feel free to encourage politicians to change their ways, but until that happens automated vehicle research will continue.

[rtsil]

Cycling usage and mass transit are strongly related to the culture of society. I believe funding self-driving is more cost-effective than getting Americans to get rid of their cars and use mass transit (and I say this as a non-American that doesn't have a car, and uses mass transit, bike and walking extensively).

[fuzxi]

>These are ambitious goals but can actually happen and are not an open-ended research project.

can actually happen *if you live in an urban area