"Are you willing to risk your life to improve this" is a leading question. What I think you meant to ask is something more like "are you willing to improve safety with your daily risk or not". I am already risking my life on the road every day. Last month I was in a Lyft and the driver decided to go around a car that was blocking an intersection and in the process swung the front of the car though the path of an oncoming light-rail train. I've known a couple people that got hit by drunk drivers; they didn't sign up for anything at all. So what's the difference? There are multiple fatal automobile accidents per day per major metro area. At least make those deaths mean something.
In fact, we already do this. All over the place. Clinical trials. Yeah, those are more heavily regulated, but the possibility of relatively increased risk there is far greater - I would not expect a modern autonomous vehicle to be ten or a hundred times more likely to kill its passengers than a human driver is. How about legislation? The legislation on drugs that's ruining some states is nothing more than some politician spending their constituents' lives to signal their own perceived moral virtue to their party. Or maybe construction projects. Every time we put up a lighter, cheaper bridge we are saving time and money by risking the lives of every person that takes that bridge instead of finding a job on the near side of the river. Or allergic reactions to medications, including vaccines! Negative reactions to vaccines are incredibly rare, but you bet your ass that I will choose to bet that someone doesn't have guillain-barre instead of letting them spread measles.
Alternatively, excuse me while I fight dirty for a bit. Let's turn your argument around. I believe that it is effectively certain that autonomous vehicles will save lives in the long run. Slowing that down costs lives. So why are you so willing to spend those lives? What right do you have to spend the lives of the people who would have been saved by autonomous cars because you thought that it was more important to preserve people's right to get hit by drunk drivers today?
"Are you willing to risk your life to improve this" is a leading question. What I think you meant to ask is something more like "are you willing to improve safety with your daily risk or not". I am already risking my life on the road every day. Last month I was in a Lyft and the driver decided to go around a car that was blocking an intersection and in the process swung the front of the car though the path of an oncoming light-rail train. So what's the difference? There are multiple fatal automobile accidents per day per major metro area. At least make that mean something.
Actually I meant what I said, because I responded to someone explicitly endorsing not only Risk, but and worth the large amount of property damage and human injury that comes with it. as for Lyft, you choose to get into thst car, I can choose to get into a car or not as well. The lady who was run down by Uber didn’t make any such choice. In general, choice and informed consent are the big different and big deal when we’re talking about unproven technology being developed on our streets; not because no other option exists, but because it’s quicker and cheaper.
In fact, we already do this. All over the place. Clinical trials.
People volunteer for them, and are fully informed of the risks and benefits, they don’t volunteer random other people. This is the very key difference I was pointing out. As I said, if you want to be a guinea pig in the name of progress, that’s your right and I’ll support and laud you for it. Just don’t volunteer me.
as for Lyft, you choose to get into thst car, I can choose to get into a car or not as well
How far do you want to take this? I accepted the risk of idiot drivers not checking before turning right when I chose to walk to work. I accepted the risk of drunk drivers drifting over the double yellow when I decided to drive to work. That train driver accepted the risk of up-close traumatic experiences when they took the job. Children accept the risk of being driven to school by their parents or walking across the street in the morning to catch the school bus.
I have to get from my apartment to my office every morning. I have to get from my office to my apartment every evening. So what am I supposed to do? I can't walk that far. Biking is just as dangerous as taking a taxi. I have bad knees and public transit only works for me a couple times a week. If I get behind the wheel I'm on the same road as drunk drivers and idiot drivers, and for medical reasons I don't have that option anyway. If I take a lyft or a taxi I'm being driven by some rando off the street. So, what, if I get run over by a fucking drunk driver one night, it's totally my fault, and I accepted that risk by fucking existing? I don't have a choice. I did not accept this risk. This risk was forced on me.
I don't care which risk I'm taking. I don't care which one is being forced on my. I don't care who is forcing it on me. I care about how much risk I am accepting. And so:
deal when we’re talking about unproven technology being developed on our streets
This is the only part of your argument that matters. The rest is an emotional distraction. If you can demonstrate that autonomous vehicles are a greater risk than the alternative, then you get to say that they're dangerous. And I don't think that you can say that. Why do you think that you get to volunteer a decade of people to being run over by drunk drivers and idiots? Because that is what you are doing - autonomous vehicles may be an unproven risk, but humans are such a long-standing and thoroughly proven risk that people have just become inured to it.
In fact, we already do this. All over the place. Clinical trials. Yeah, those are more heavily regulated, but the possibility of relatively increased risk there is far greater - I would not expect a modern autonomous vehicle to be ten or a hundred times more likely to kill its passengers than a human driver is. How about legislation? The legislation on drugs that's ruining some states is nothing more than some politician spending their constituents' lives to signal their own perceived moral virtue to their party. Or maybe construction projects. Every time we put up a lighter, cheaper bridge we are saving time and money by risking the lives of every person that takes that bridge instead of finding a job on the near side of the river. Or allergic reactions to medications, including vaccines! Negative reactions to vaccines are incredibly rare, but you bet your ass that I will choose to bet that someone doesn't have guillain-barre instead of letting them spread measles.
Alternatively, excuse me while I fight dirty for a bit. Let's turn your argument around. I believe that it is effectively certain that autonomous vehicles will save lives in the long run. Slowing that down costs lives. So why are you so willing to spend those lives? What right do you have to spend the lives of the people who would have been saved by autonomous cars because you thought that it was more important to preserve people's right to get hit by drunk drivers today?
This is what civilization is. Just do the math.