this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2024
580 points (96.9% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3196 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sizzler@slrpnk.net 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

And this is how they will push everyone into driverless. Through insurance costs. Who would insure 1 human driver vs 100 bots, (once the systems have a few billion miles on them)

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And that will probably be safer for everyone, honestly. Better or worse will vary by individual perspective.

[–] Sizzler@slrpnk.net 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

It'll be interesting to see how it pans out, with local city traffic being essentially reduced to all taxis and only the countryside 4x4 and farm vehicles being the last hold out of human control because of hilly terrain. Once the lorries go fully self-controlled (note: modern lorries have a lot of driver support aids as it is.) it'll only be a matter of time.

Totally agree that car incidents will go down dramatically, some police forces will see their entire income disappear. Soo many changes that we can't even imagine coming.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Good points. I bet local towns are the biggest holdout just because of dependence on ticket revenue.

[–] Sizzler@slrpnk.net 2 points 7 months ago

I included that line thinking of America, it vastly reduces police interaction chance as well which gives me more thought.

[–] philpo@feddit.de 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Farm vehicles are far more automated than any cars these days.

[–] Sizzler@slrpnk.net 1 points 7 months ago

I did think about that whilst I included farm vehicles but meant support rather than harvesters.

I wonder if any lessons have been used and applied from the farm industries automation which is great when applied to a specific area as opposed to general driving.

It's very GPS driven from what I'm aware with the accurate measuring GPS units being thousands of pounds which obviously restricts it for use in the consumer market.

[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

You're probably right. Another decade or two and human driver controlled cars might be prohibitively expensive to insure for some or even not allowed in certain areas.

I can imagine an awesome world where that's a great thing but also imagine a dystopian world like wall-e as well. I guess we'll know then which one we chose.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I feel you’re misapplying the advantage. Right now people hit other people in cars and insurance is what it is. It would be more appropriate to say that humans will pay normal rates, while autonomous car companies will charge you an insurance subscription, and work out much lower rates with the insurer.

[–] Sizzler@slrpnk.net 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You would think that's how it should be right? Not a chance. They'll find another reason to stiff you.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 2 points 7 months ago

As long as there is free competition, the cost will be around 10% over the operating cost. After that point it becomes worthwhile for another competitor to step in.