Originally Posted by
livedarklions
Congratulations, I think that may be the most strawman arguments and made-up statistics I have ever seen in a small paragraph. I'm pretty sure no one is satisfied with 40,000 deaths as being acceptable, we just right now don't accept that AI control is capable of reducing that number. You're acting like there's overwhelming evidence for that acceptance of AI control, and there just isn't.
We haven't gotten to the point where AV have demonstrated basic competence, let alone improving safety, and the issue for us as cyclists is that we will be dealing with a mix of AV and driver/operator controlled. I'm pretty sure none of us are intending to ride our AI controlled bicycles. (I'm also pretty sure that for the foreseeable future, the vast majority of motor vehicles are going to be driver controlled, so your "instant reduction" scenario is absurd on its face). My understanding is that AI is having trouble identifying cyclists and also generally anticipating the likely actions of non-AI operators--we don't function according to computer-generated algorithms.
OK. Let's make some assumptions to test my THEORY.
Let's say we finally get the AI nearly right and it can do Level 5 Self Driving... at what point is it acceptable as a replacement for human drivers?
- Would you accept that AVs (with AI) are superior to human drivers if the number of traffic deaths was cut in half... to say merely 20,000 a year?
- How about if AVs were 90% perfect, and the number of traffic deaths was reduced to a mere 4000 a year?
- Or do you demand 99% perfection of AI, and only 400 deaths a year.
- Or will you only accept 100% perfection of AI... and no traffic deaths?
So what is "good enough?" 1, 2, 3 or only 4... and why? Considering that right now we "allow" for 40,000 deaths by drivers on our highways each year?