• workerONE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 days ago

    About 3700 people die every day in motor vehicle crashes. 1.35 million per year.

    Why wouldn’t you allow a safer alternative to human operators?

    • DrCake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      5 days ago

      We can’t just take the robotaxi companies at their word that they are safer though. Countries need some kind of way to test these like human driving tests. Some kind of automated verification system for each update before it can go public.

      Otherwise who’s to say Tesla, for example, won’t release a buggy update that becomes worse? They are already releasing versions that allow the car to exceed the speed limit by x amount so to me that would be an instant fail on a test.

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        To begin with, we need full transparency and mandatory reporting. The latter is already required by law, but Cruise fucked around with that once by lying, and look at them now. Tesla is the worst offender by sheer numbers, if you count their “full self driving” as autonomy, which it really isn’t, even though they sell it as such … they’re a joke in the industry, make everyone else bad, and just need to die already; their sole rollout for an autonomous service in Austin was pathetic.

    • paultimate14@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      Trains, bicycles, and walkable infrastructure would be far safer, cheaper, and more sustainable.

      • workerONE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        Rail only goes where the infrastructure is built out. Heavy deliveries and cargo need some method of completing the last leg of the route, even if there is a rail line nearby. How is a train an alternative to a vehicle that can drive down a dirt road? You just have millions of trains running everywhere all the time even when the routes are rarely used?

        Last time I had a discussion like this people were saying we didn’t need trucks, that we can just use fleets of cargo bicycles.

        • themusicman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          If the only road vehicles were occasional 20kph last mile delivery vehicles and emergency services, our roads and cities could look drastically different. Outside cities, this doesn’t really apply and we probably still need traditional road vehicles.

          • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            Crazy idea and just throwing this out there, what if we dont acturally need suburbs in America? They’re absolutely horrible for space efficiency, they’re environmentally expensive, and create the conditions that require cars. Nobody really needs two or three guest bedrooms and lets be honest front lawns are useless (they also look ugly).

            Now im not saying we should just demolish peoples houses. What I am saying is that no new suburban housing should be developed and over time through laws the suburbs should be destroyed. Rual areas can have their roads tho.