[prosody]

The term FUD makes sense in low-risk applications where the benefit of the doubt ought to be given. In safety-critical contexts it should be completely reversed, and confidence, certainty and trust should be looked at extremely critically.

[CamperBob2]

Human drivers kill 30,000+ per year in the US alone. Development of an automated driving option is a safety-critical context, and that requires real-world deployment experience.

The precautionary principle is not what is called for here.

[mcpackieh]

Your argument has the form of: "We have to do something. This is something, therefore we have to do this."

You've failed to establish automated driving as a safer alternative, let alone the best practical solution. The fact that these cars can't even move out of the way of emergency vehicles proves they aren't ready for testing on the public now.

> requires real-world deployment experience.

Not at this stage it doesn't. They haven't exhausted the utility of simulated training and training on closed courses. They're testing on the public (human experimentation without informed consent) because it's cheaper and they can get away with it, not because they must.

[CamperBob2]

You've failed to establish automated driving as a safer alternative,

And you've failed to establish anything as a safer alternative. (Want to get Americans out of their cars? Bring guns. You'll need a lot of them.)

Get out of the way of the people who are trying to make things better, please.

[mcpackieh]

> And you've failed to establish anything as a safer alternative.

I don't have, but since you've asked here are some possibilities, pick and choose as many as you like: ban cars, mandate breathalyzer interlocks, revise safety standards, improve collision avoidance systems in human-driven cars.

> Get out of the way of the people who are trying to make things better, please

Trying to make things better doesn't give you license to actually make things worse. Good intentions don't count if I think what you're trying is actually making things worse.

> Get out of the way

No.

[CamperBob2]

Well, you know, we all want to change the world.

[joshribakoff]

I believe you’re citing a stat corresponding to the number of traffic fatalities. That doesn’t mean in all of those cases one person killed another as you implied. For example if someone dies after drunk driving and crashes themselves into a tree that doesn’t seem right to say “the driver killed someone”

[CamperBob2]

Having trouble finding a charitable way to interpret your point here. I don't think anyone should die as a result of drunk driving.

[beachy]

> Development of an automated driving option is a safety-critical context, and that requires real-world deployment experience.

All the more reason not to fuck things up at this stage. Precautionary principl is very appropriate with new tech in a safety-critical context.

[djohnston]

More people are dying with unnecessary precaution because we keep humans behind the wheel.