As your parent says: "Context suggests people are justifiably upset, not that these specific actions where justified. "
As in then being upset is justified, not their retaliation.
As in then being upset is justified, not their retaliation.
Think about it - running a car off the road so you can yell at them to display your displeasure? That’s violence and no one should be subjected to that.
Despite what people like to say, our institutions work and work a lot better than many around the world. If you want change, you have to work for it and convince others of your point. Democracy is not about acting out, it’s about civil discourse. All sides deserve to be heard, but in a civil manner.
Eventually, that’s likely to be true, but currently these are sill in the experimental stage and regularly have issues. The collective benifit is probably a net win long term. But, they are not replacing google street view cars or something so as to spread that risk out. Instead they are concentrating that risk into a small subset of residential streets in some poor neighborhoods.
Even if it was already slightly safer than human drivers the extra traffic really risks these people’s lives. But because they are low income they don’t expect to be able to afford self driving cars in the next 10+ years. So, that’s meaningful harm without the exception to benifit.
Now how a tiny subset of a community responds is predictable but not justifiable.
These cars already safer than human drivers and they are common on the streets around Google. So unless you mean "risk" as "risk of being slightly inconvenienced", neither of your points is accurate.
> But because they are low income they don’t expect to be able to afford self driving cars in the next 10+ years.
It is pretty clear that Waymo primarily intends to sell a taxi service, not cars directly. This taxi service would be cheaper and safer than any currently available so people of all incomes would benefit both directly and indirectly (fewer DUI drivers).
I have seen no such proof, source?
Also, the last study I found had self driving car tests result in 4x the rate of injury’s vs normal drivers. This should be improving over time and the sample size was 11 injuries over 1.1 million miles, but even still systems in R&D are inherently risky.
Waymo has caused a single crash in 5 million miles of driving and no one was hurt.[2] They have been involved in slightly more incidents than would be predicted for a human driver (30 vs. 21) in those 5 million miles but it was not at fault for the others.
[1] http://fortune.com/2018/06/30/uber-lyft-poor-minority-commun...
[2] https://www.wired.com/story/waymo-crash-self-driving-google-...
Second while the number is still a low enough number not to be particularly relevant other than to say the gross order of magnitude. However...
Google's autonomous vehicles have crashed 36 times in the Mountain View area
https://www.businessinsider.com/cruise-waymo-apple-which-sel...
Waymo spokesperson called the research "deeply flawed" and said it "reflects a poor understanding of the data as it fails to distinguish between a vehicle that drives hundreds of miles per day on public roads, with one that seldom leaves its garage."
In other words they don’t disagree with the number of crashes, even when excluding other areas.
I'm not sure what new argument you are attempting here. Mountain View has lots of heavily residential areas if you are implying otherwise.
The Waymo spokesman is completely right, this is a very stupid way of ranking safety. This article is more recent than the one I cited and includes more than twice the number of testing miles so the raw number of incidents is unsurprisingly higher.