For the pedestrians they might hit the opposite has happened in the US as cars have been replaces with giant trucks and SUVs with extremely poor visibility.
The US is a mobility and automobile obsessed society. Walking and cycling are usually associated with exercise or inability to drive due to lack of resources.
Combine that with an obsession to make cars available to anyone, even if they are known dangerous. Look up videos on YouTube of police pursuits in Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, Michigan. Those aren't exceptions, they are glimpses into a mass pathology. I believe Madison, Wisconsin was tracking multiple police pursuits per day in recent years. The subjects there frequently and deliberately drive on the wrong side of roads to compel the police to terminate the pursuits.
Maybe it's a scale thing. If you are sologeneer working on your own project, with a singular vision, making tools to make your life simpler is a no-brainer.
If you are implementing a feature for stakeholders on a large piece enterprise software, you don't necessarily have knowledge or understanding of helper tools from earlier work, so that's extra overhead to understand anything non-standard. Then when the stakeholders change direction (as they often do), any assumptions in your code may need to be upheld while implementing the next feature.
Edit: This is also why it's nice to use widely adopted libraries and frameworks for any helper code. That way a new starter has a chance of understanding what's going on.
For this to work I think the assumption is that the benefit of gerrymandering is less than the "anyone who doesn't like the in power guys" effect. e.g. % of disgruntled swing voters.
One big issue I see is all these people following programs made for people using PEDs and those programs consider the "lack" or small amount of recovery required when on PEDs.
If you are natural you need to very cerfully monitor your recovery and how often you train each muscle. Especially if you get older
If a person stops in the middle of a road, other people talk to that person, and typically learn what's going on and can help work on resolving it. Are they having a heart attack? Do they need people to push the car? Are they having a road rage incident? Are they a jerk who needs to run into a store and picked the wrong place to stop temporarily to do it? Even if the situation can't be solved, the ability to communicate (or the implication of not being able to communicate) gives predictable, human-friendly feedback which can be shared with emergency services and other people.
I think good question is that are the kilometers driven same?
That is is the self-driven same set as human driven? Without any exclusions. And if not are the ones exluded and including accidents included in self-driving?
A lot of people (including replies to my root comment) seem to take a puritanical rather than a pragmatic view: if a self driving car makes any mistakes at all, that's too many. Even if the human driver it replaces is much worse and will make many more (and more serious) errors should they not be replaced...
Humans are generally viewed to have an inherent right -- or at least a strong imperative -- to fully participate in society. Restricting a human's right or privilege to do something typically carries a higher burden than simply asking whether the thing they are doing is a net positive/negative. Over the last 100 years the layout of cities and countries reflects an expectation that full participation in society requires access to transportation. While driving is not an absolute right and we subject drivers to certain minimum requirements (licensing and sometimes periodic relicensing, insurance, various laws that apply to conduct in a motor vehicle), the presumption is basically to create a pathway that allows people to drive.
Driving creates a danger and a number of costly externalities. Those are the costs side of the cost-benefit equation. It may be the case that AI drivers have generally lower costs because of your assertion that they make fewer mistakes or less grave mistakes than humans. This does not lead to the obvious inference that allowing an AI driver today in a particular place under a particular regime of rules confers a benefit equal to allowing a human to drive.
In the same way, for instance, we do not generally pass laws or policies against people having children, even if we recognize that some people are suboptimal or unfit parents. Instead we presume fitness and build in some checks to capture excessively unfit parenting later. Whatever the cost of suboptimal parenting, we recognize the choice or ability to have a child to be a part of basic human dignity, and so the benefits outweigh the costs. Many jurisdictions place more onerous requirements on pet ownership than human ownership even if the downside cost of being a negligent pet owner is less bad than being a negligent parent.
Perhaps the calculus will be different when AI driving is costless and ubiquitous; we might decide collectively that humans have no inherent right to manually operate vehicles and full participation in society does not require them to. But in the mean time, holding AI driver street tests to a higher standard than human drivers can be justified strictly on a cost-benefit (and thus pragmatic) basis.
You might counter that, well, AI driving tests don't provide a benefit now, but given a particular utility function, the testing offers <x> marginal training value towards a future reduction in costs (in terms of injury/delay/death). But then it depends on your discount factor of the present versus the future, which is a socially determined function.
There's also an underlying presumption that there's some elasticity of resource allocation. Perhaps allocating $x million towards AI driving reduces deaths or injuries or delays; but people can readily contest that $x million spent on other options could do so more efficiently (perhaps infrastructural investment in public transit, perhaps additional free driver's training, perhaps more robust emergency services, perhaps safety features). Because much of this investment is occurring in the private sector, people rely on the state's regulation of these efforts to incentivize allocating resources towards preferred investments. This is also pragmatic, rather than puritanical.
It's fine to disagree or have a more bullish view of AI driving, or to feel these concerns are overrated, but it makes very little sense to characterize them as puritanical (in contrast to pragmatic). Some people may have puritanical views, just as some proponents of the technology may have messianic views. But both positions can be justified entirely from rational argument depending on one's utility function. Why strawman?
You are a really uncharitable poster here. Your first intervention is to dismiss anyone who disagree with you about which metrics are most useful as "bullshit" and "emotional" and here you call them puritans. I think you should engage in some self-reflection and try to approach conversation online in a less antisocial way.
Maybe? I think the problem is does a small entity like a person or a start up have the resources to make that fight with a big entity? Even if it’s a really obvious and winnable case?
How do you compare non identical twins to the general population? Aren’t twins, even non identical likely to share the same diet, the same environmental factors and maybe even the same viruses etc - all could be contributing factors?
