BookRix

Arlington , VA

Sitting aside the (passionate) opinions and pontificates for a moment perhaps
we can back up (pun intended) to the self-driving incident for one moment of
empirical reflection. Horrifying and tragic as the fatal incident is, lets
statistically compare miles traveled self driving vs. historical human driving
(sometimes under influence of alcohol) and consider the statistical likelihood
of a pedestrian fatality from self driving vs. human driving. I don't have
access to the data. I suspect that fatalities to pedestrians per mile traveled
is much higher for human operated vehicles than self driving vehicles.

Let's say, as a thought experiment, my guess is correct. Lets say a pedestrian
is killed by self driving vehicles once per 3 million miles of vehicle travel
vs., say (just pulling numbers out of the air) that a pedestrian is killed
once per 1 million miles of current human driving.

Are we willing to let reason and rational empirical evidence be esteemed and
given reasonable weight in the midst of opinion, feelings, reactions, broad
sensationalism (all good things for the journalism and social media
industries)?

I trust professional journalism, like the NY Times, to be more likely to
include a dose of empirical skepticism than public social media (sensational
and opinion driven). Maybe I am biased but my interpretation is that this is
somewhat valid trust. For the health and power of free press I hope so.

------
Video: https://moxox.com
Music: https://muxiv.com
AV: http://yofuk.com

Sehr witzig geschrieben. Habe mich sehr amüsiert :-)))
lg Karin

Eine sehr lustige Geschichte :-)
LG Michi

Tolle Geschichte! Da wird man richtig satt gemacht :-) LG, Xx PP

Klasse geschrieben!
Der Titel ist einerseits verwirrend, aber auch toll gewählt.
*Wow!*
*LOL*
Michelle