| > Deaths due to drunk driving are absolutely among those that self-driving car advocates aim to prevent. Instead of proposing legislation that everyone must own a self-driving vehicle (the path self-driving vehicle advocates seem to be heading towards), wouldn't a more reasonable, less expensive, and less obtrusive solution be to mandate breathalyzers in every vehicle? (I don't support this either, but it's less expensive and less of a burden). Self-driving cars won't last as long due to the sheer amount of technology required to be in the vehicle. So instead of getting 5-20 years of out of your "dumb car" you'll get closer to 2-5 years before the electronics inside degrade to an unsafe state. Can the electronics be upgraded/replaced when they become unsafe? Sure, but this is a significant cost burden on the consumer... The precision and reliability the electronics must provide has to be absolute. To achieve this level, they'll have to be better than military-grade sensors -- heck, military helicopters with some of the best sensors, ai, and electronics crash routinely... and they get regular maintenance before and after every flight. How long do we really expect the average consumer's self-driving vehicle to last when most drivers don't even change their oil once every year? > Automobile-related deaths are the number one killer of healthy adults in the US, and the number one killer, period, That's a disingenuous statement. People were healthy until they contracted the flu. They were healthy until they suffered a sudden heart attack. Those are the true leading killers of all Americans... healthy and not. |
I think the path many advocates are headed towards is actually more radical: largely eliminating personal vehicle ownership entirely, with rides available as a service, Uber-like, as part of most people's multimodal transportation mix that might also include transit, more walking, etc. I don't expect either direction to occur via a mandate, though, but the economics of the more aggressive plan are interesting. Most cars sit unused for 22 hours a day, and there are enormous economies to be gained from improved utilization if cars are a shareable asset, especially with the labor taken out of the equation (as compared to current Uber), and I think the shift may well happen on its own, at least in part and in some places. And to be clear, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition; replacing some drivers still potentially improves everyone's safety.
As for the second bit: if you think my first stat is disingenuous, pay attention to my second, which you cut off halfway through. In that age bracket, automobiles are the top killer overall, including health-related causes. The flu disproportionately kills infants and the elderly (and for what it's worth, you vastly overstated the efficacy of the flu vaccine in your original post; it's totally worth getting, but still only decreased recipients' chances of contracting the flu by a bit more than half; "totally vaccinatable [and] preventable" it is not).