| |
| ▲ | jasode 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >the obvious (and rather malicious, I would say) PR play that parent comment points out. The author Lawrence Ulrich references research from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Why would it be "obvious" that they are paid PR shills for Tesla/Waymo? I'm jaded and cynical so I can accept that they may be secret PR mouthpieces but isn't it reasonable to expect a little evidence rather than just throwing out a random accusation? | | |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | IIHS works for the insurance industry who will happily throw you under the bus if it makes things more predictable on their side. Not better, not lower claims, more predictable. The alignment between what is good for you and good for the interests they answer two is not all that much. But of course, they work very hard to market themselves as peddlers purely of safety, after all only a barbarian would be against safety <mockingly clutches pearls> This isn't to say that some people they don't care, but giving a crap isn't gonna change the incentives. | | |
| ▲ | Apocryphon 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How do using autonomous vehicles benefit their claims-settling? Wouldn't it make it unpredictable- in an accident between two self-driving vehicles, who is liable? What if both vehicles are from the same company? Doesn't this lead to extreme variability? | |
| ▲ | throwaway198846 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Whould they? If things are too predictable they would be out of job. |
|
| |
| ▲ | SR2Z 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Can you actually define what the kool-aid is here? Because AV companies are saying "look at this new product, it objectively drives better and safer than a human, you don't have to deal with a human driver, it works 24/7, and in our experience most people prefer it to driving." I have NEVER seen a single person accuse anyone of being a bad person for still preferring to drive a car manually. Not once, not even the usual one or two crazy people you can find to support almost any other crazy statement. Where is the kool-aid from the robotaxi side that's so visible? Keep in mind that "kool-aid" implies that something is factually incorrect. | | |
| ▲ | BoingBoomTschak 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I have NEVER seen a single person accuse anyone of being a bad person for still preferring to drive a car manually Just read further in this thread, will you? | | |
| ▲ | SR2Z 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah I have. I still don't see it, I do see a lot of unwarranted cynicism and extremely sloppy arguments against these cars. |
| |
| ▲ | quadrifoliate 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > "look at this new product, it objectively drives better and safer than a human, you don't have to deal with a human driver, it works 24/7, and in our experience most people prefer it to driving." A lot of these are true about other things like pedestrian-friendly streets, bike lanes, and mass rail transit. The kool-aid is that the robotaxi people act like they are the first one to solve this problem. | | |
| ▲ | SR2Z 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, dammit. Pedestrian friendly streets are great! You can't walk that far, and I love walking places when I have time and energy. Bike lanes are great! I bike to work. If I'm not careful I'll arrive sweaty, and that inherently limits when and where I bike. Mass rail transit is great! It cannot get directly to every door or frequently even to within walking distance of every door (I take a train to the office when I don't wanna bike). I really do understand that it's trendy to hate on cars. There are a lot of bad things that come with car dependence. All of that is true AND YET cars make us more productive and allow us to do things that would be impossible otherwise. Robotaxi companies are not trying to replace any of those things. That makes no sense because they don't need to do that to succeed. So I will ask again: what is the kool-aid that I'm supposedly drinking? | |
| ▲ | thereisnospork 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "everyone" still drives -- the problem has very much not yet been solved. Could it be solved in other ways? Sure, but it hasn't. Why it hasn't is an interesting question but that's out of scope. |
|
| |
| ▲ | bko 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Saying an article is just PR, without addressing the specific article is not helpful. Argue how the author was funded by such and such a group with ties to this other group. Say something about the methodology used. Say literally anything about the actual post. This would be the equivalent of me just calling you a "shill" with no other context. The burden of proof is on you since you're making the claim that this is misleading PR. |
|
