"The Fate of the Furious" Trailer Does Not Want You To Embrace Self-Driving Cars

Submitted by: fancylad 2 months ago in Entertainment


Kurt Russell says Charlize Theron is "the very definition of high-tech terrorism," in the new trailer of "The Fate of the Furious" which is actually a cautionary tale about we are getting close to how one person can theoretically have 100 percent control of every car in America. Hey, if it can happen with iPhones and Smart TVs, why not cars?
There are 10 comments:
Male 1,287
Hacking cars is already possible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeXfCNwMG64

0
Reply
Male 2,602
why not cars?

cause one of mine is a manual. in america. weird right? 
0
Reply
Male 8,132
skypirate That might be illegal soon.
0
Reply
Male 7,740
holygod That might be illegal soon.

That will be a remembered fight. 
0
Reply
Male 8,132
megrendel Well, in 2015 there were 35,000 auto related fatalities and 2.4 million injuries.

If automated vehicles can eliminate 95% of those I'd like to think people would be smart enough to realize that simply liking something is not a good enough reason to put that many people's lives at risk by keeping it.

But hey, maybe not. It certainly doesn't work that way for certain other things....
0
Reply
Male 7,740
holygod Good points, but a few counterpoints.

35,000 deaths while sounding like a lot (and, to a certain point IS), it is actually one death per every 1.76 MILLION hours driven.  (calculating based on there are ~210 million drivers, spending an average of 293 hours driving each year).   We're talking 210  MILLION drivers, so that's a death rate of 0.017%

Who says automated vehicles can eliminate 95% of these? It's a very complex system with many variables and the automation would have to be thoroughly worked out and tested. Even then some will not trust it.

And, people are not always smart enough to arrange things in their best interest. There are certain freedoms and realities they take into account. 

But, it will be debated for a long time.  Maybe automation can prove itself in time.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
megrendel OK. First, I don't think your math is right. I mean it is, but I'd imagine the deaths take into account pedestrians killed by accidents as well. So you can't just use the number of drivers. You'd have to include the whole population as a car can kill you even if you never set foot in one.  

Let's use .017% though. It isn't a high rate, but it is a high enough rate to fix a problem. I mean its roughly the same death rate of breast cancer. Shouldn't we still try to cure the problem if we can? 

I read 95% reduction somewhere but I don't remember where and it was just hypothetical. However, let's say its only 30% reduction. Are we not going to save 10,000 lives a year because the counter argument is "ya, but I like shifting manually"?

People are often not smart enough. That's what laws are for.

I think we're going to be amazed how fast automation becomes standard on cars. It was only the 90s when a passenger side airbag was a feature in luxury vehicles only. Now Hyundais have side curtain airbags. Tesla already has functioning auto pilot. Pretty soon your Civic will drive itself.
0
Reply
Male 7,740
holygod Actually, I think Pedestrians are counted.  If they are killed by a motor vehicle I believe they are counted among motor vehicle deaths. (don't hold me to that).
0
Reply
Male 8,132
megrendel Yes I know. I said that. But you divided all deaths (including pedestrians) by total drivers. If people can be killed even if they aren't driving then you need to divide deaths by total population, not just drivers.
0
Reply
Male 6,656
megrendel Automation is coming, whether you like it or not.
0
Reply