View Single Post
Kickaha
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2016-11-17, 15:44

What part of "Oh no, see, I know precisely what you're talking about. That was not in dispute." was unclear?

Three links are not proof or evidence of your claim that automated cars would be 'more likely to [...] kill people'.

1) 'more likely' than what? Today? You seem to be saying that total deaths will go up with automated cars. If not, then your wording is really very poorly chosen. But, here's your chance to clarify.

2) Show your work. "OMG, there were crashes!!" No kidding. Cars crash. Your apparent claim is that under an automated network of cars that total deaths would increase. Provide a reasonable set of assumptions and logic to support this claim. Not three anecdotes. I want to see total deaths now per mile driven, and total deaths per mile driven under current automated guidance. Extrapolate out. State your assumptions. Will the systems improve, or do you assume that the current data is as good as it will get? Will they improve at a steady rate? What's the lowest rate of crashes you think is reasonable even under a 'perfect' system? Are you assuming that people will turn it off? What %? Provide a model that rolls these assumptions together and gives numeric results. Short of that, it's like, just your opinion, man.

In other words, you really did waste your time providing those links. You're flailing your hands about over something that the rest of us are going "Yes, that happened, and.... ?"

Yes, I'm busting your balls, but I'm kind of ridiculously done with letting comments slide. Replacing fact with opinion, and opinion with speculation, and speculation with random BS is not working for anyone any more. It's time it gets called out.

Last edited by Kickaha : 2016-11-17 at 16:21.
  quote