• Roguelazer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 days ago

    Focusing on airbag-deployments and injuries ignores the obvious problem: these things are unbelievably unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists. I curse SF for allowing AVs and always give them a wide berth because there’s no way to know if they see you and they’ll often behave erratically and unpredictably in crosswalks. I don’t give a shit how often the passengers are injured, I care a lot more how much they disrupt life for all the people who aren’t paying Waymo for the privilege.

    • bluGill@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 days ago

      The question is are they safer than human drivers, not are they safe. Cars exist, are everywhere, and are very unsafe to pedestrians. You won’t be able to get rid of cars, so if waymo is really safer we should mandate it on all cars. That is a big if though - drunk drivers are still a large percentage of crashes so is if far to lump sober drivers together with drunks - I don’t know the real statistics to figure this out.

    • Chozo@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 days ago

      always give them a wide berth because there’s no way to know if they see you and they’ll often behave erratically and unpredictably in crosswalks

      All of this applies to dealing with human drivers, too.

    • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      So the fact that after 50 million miles of driving there have been no pedestrian or cyclist deaths means they are unbelievably unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists? As far as I can tell, the only accidents involving pedestrians or cyclists AT ALL after 50 million miles is when a Waymo struck a plastic crate that careened into another lane where a scooter ran into it. And yet in your mind they are unbelievably unsafe?