odysseus2000 wrote:Lootman wrote:servodude wrote:Even if your system is 200x better than humans driving... every mess up falls at your feet. That PR will be hard to wear.
Yes, and in fact it doesn't really matter if driverless cars are 200 times or even 2,000 times safer. The first time a driverless car mows down a schoolchild on a zebra crossing, it will set back driverless cars by years.
The people who don't die because of driverless cars won't know it. It is the families of the ones who did die that will kick off.
I don’t think it will work this way at least in the US.
There have been an horrendous number of gun mass murders. Most could be stopped if guns were banned, but despite all the rhetoric it never happens.
Once fsd launches the number of car accidents plummets & the odd disaster becomes like guns, too popular with too many to ban it.
The difference is that guns are already in use. It is getting rid of them that would be the change.
Whereas we do not currently use driverless cars. The change would be people using them.
Inertia always operates against change. And each "accident" that happens, like the Waymo (Google) car that hit a pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing in San Francisco a few weeks ago, will add to the resistance to change.
Those car accidents that you claim will "plummet" cannot do that prior to adoption and legalisation. Until then it is just a claim.