kheldan's Journal: We need better driver education, training, and testing, not 'self-driving cars'

Operating a motor vehicle is one of the most complex tasks human beings ever perform. That being said, we do an excellent job of it -- so long as we're educated and trained to do it properly. What I'm seeing is that people are not being educated and trained properly, and not adequately tested, therefore we end up with sub-par drivers on the roads, and myopic types that think that since some drivers are bad, all drivers are bad. This is simply not the case, and so-called 'self-driving cars' are not going to save us from ourselves, they're only going to create an entire generation of people who don't have the knowledge, skill or experience to operate a motor vehicle safely. Meanwhile it'll be decades, if not many decades, before there is a so-called 'self-driving car' that is truly conscious, self-aware, and at least as competent as a properly educated and trained human driver. The result will be more accidents, traffic jams, and stupid traffic-related problems, as so-called 'self-driving cars' show all their weaknesses in stressful situations. I don't want to live in that world. What I propose instead is better driver education and training, and more stringent and frequent testing by the State, to both create a better class of driver, and to exclude people from operating motor vehicles if they cannot master the skillset required to do so. Taking the position of "It's too hard, so we shouldn't do it at all" with regards to driving is, to put it bluntly, flat-out stupid. For at least the nest 20 years, a human driver will be required to supervise any sophisticated autopiloting feature in ground vehicles, and to do so they will need to be, as always, properly educated, trained, tested, and insured to do so, even more so if auto manufacturers are going to start providing a 'crutch' for otherwise poorly-skilled drivers to lean on.

Really?

[moosehooey]

I'm unable to drive because vision problems. So fuck off.

Your ignorance is appaling

[gurps_npc]

First and foremost, driving a car well is one of the most extremely difficult tasks possible. A professional race car driver can get into a normal, 10 year old, street legal car, you can get into a top of the line highly tuned race car, and they will STILL beat you. Even on a circular track. Because driving is just hard to do. It takes years of experience and hard training to make someone a good driver.

Second, SELF-DRIVING CARS ARE ALREADY SAFER THAN MOST HUMAN DRIVERS. Not in decades, now, today. T

Re:

[kheldan]

You sound like a Vegan talking about how meat is killing everyone. Never mind that humans have been eating meat for hundreds of thousands of years and -- shocker! -- we thrive as a species. People have been driving a long time now, and you make it sound like it's sheer luck that we're not all dead in traffic accidents. Self-driving cars are a JOKE, they'll make people lazier and stupider, and will probably cause MORE accidents when they're rushed to market, and rushed through legislation to allow them. I al

Re:

[gurps_npc]

The reason Vegans sound like that is they are trying to sound reasonable. The difference between, the vegan, me, and you is simple:

I am the only one with actual, real statistics. You and the vegan both make up lies and complain about how in your fantasy prediction, things would be worse.

1) We have self driving cars. They are not a joke. Their driving record is clear and they cause LESS accidents (only 1 so far) The existing of a product can NOT make someone 'lazier and stupider', it isn't lead poison y

Re:

[kheldan]

Your so-called 'self driving cars' operate at 20mph maximum, and turn over control to the HUMAN DRIVER all the time, when it encounters things that it can't handle. Therefore they are a JOKE and will not be a truly viable technology for at least 20 years, not in the form that you fanbois have wet dreams about (no controls for a human,, which is flat-out INSANE). Your 'statistics' are meaningless because of this, and because there aren't enough of them to be meaningful at all. So, how much does Google pay yo