The editorial board from the NY Times published an editorial titled “Lessons From the Tesla Crash” on July 11, 2016 which talks about the state of assisted driving features on newer models of cars. The board comes to a conclusion that having assisted driving features can make cars “more dangerous” and there must be rules set in place from The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. According to the editorial these new rules would be set upon the manufacturer's teams to make sure that the systems are outfitted with “better testing and regulations”. The editorial prompts the agency to “take lessons from the history of airbags and the lack of strong regulations” and apply these past mistakes to better prepare society for this new technology. …show more content…
This crash caused someone to die and is a strong, representative tie to how assisted driving has not matured yet. Tesla, the company who makes the car involved in the crash even commented saying that it was a failure from the assisted driving which “did not detect a white tractor-trailer”. Another piece of evidence that Google even pulled back on their assisted driving research in favor of driverless cars due to systems causing drivers to become “dangerously distracted”. The huge tech conglomerate pulls back its research on the latest driving tech? That would seem odd but according to the tech giant it is not worth it so they are pushing even further into the future. A third piece of evidence the editorial provides is the history it pulls back from when airbags were dangerous. It parallels the new to the old and shows the reader that the airbags foretell the future of assisted drivers, but instead of being dangerous to “women and children” it will be dangerous to everyone in an even bigger way without …show more content…
Their method of inductive reasoning starts when they mention the car crash, the crash could have been prevented by the systems but it could also be prevented by the driver who might have been “possibly...distracted”. This line of reasoning that the authors use when describing their situations is inductive because they can not wholly confirm that the systems are truly dangerous and can cause the driver to become distracted or if it is because drivers are more easily distracted altogether due to an outside reason such as the explosion of the smartphone. A fallacy I saw in the editorial was an argument from analogy. This stems from the analogy made with assisted driving and airbags. Due to both leading to the possibility of injuring people and being a technology that had a rocky start in car innovation the two are similar. This does not mean that somehow the assisted driving is going to cause a widespread impact of injuries that airbags may once have done and it does not mean that assisted driving will not improve simply because their is no legislation driving companies to improve
However, people tend to use this technology to engage in more dangerous behaviors, ignoring the always-present risks. The ABS system is used by car, and it makes the brake more reliable and decrease the risk of accidents. However, “the drivers [use] the additional element of safety to enable them to drive faster and more recklessly without increasing their risk of getting into an accident” (p289). People like to use the technology in a different way, so an unexpected result always comes after. They use the technical measurement as an excuse, make it be responsible for their naive behaviors. “Why are more pedestrians killed crossing the street at marked crosswalks than at unmarked crosswalks? Because they compensate for the ‘safe’ environment of a marked crossing by being less vigilant about oncoming traffic” (p289). It is kind of a self-comforting; people create a safe environment to palsy themselves. Most of them immerse in this “safe” environment, and do not realize their dangerous behavior because they subjectively think the technology is more advanced than before, and allows them to engage hazardous behavior with absolute safe. Ironically, the fact is the inverse of what they think. As an economist says, “they ‘consumed’ the risk reduction, they didn’t save it.” (p289) As the result of doing more dangerous things, tragedy often happens. On the other hand, people should not be surprised if it
Car crashes are no laughing matter. Being in a car crash and seeing a family suffer because of the crash is devastating. The only thing being more horrific than witnessing the crash is being the reason it started. There is no need to be on your phone while driving. Emails, texts, and social media can wait. In their editorial, Editorial Board, Star Tribune explains why a bipartisan plan to restrict cellphone use while driving should get approved this session in Minnesota. First, Star Tribune incorporates specific details to emphasize the significance of this bill getting put in place. Then, Star Tribune appeals to your logos by adding statistics into their editorial to express the injury and death
Tesla may face many business regulations when conducting business in Japan. Many factors can affect Tesla’s decision making abroad. These factors include government and politics, formal trade barriers, promotional strategies, and intellectual property rights. Like the United States, Japan’s government is separated into three branches: Executive, Judicial, and Legislative. Although Japan’s Emperor sits as the head of the state, the Ministers of the State and the Prime Minister control the government. Not only is Japan one of the most successful democracies, but Japan is also one of the most largest economies.
I do not understand how a driver, in this case Rafaela Vasquez, did not take control of the vehicle if she was seating behind a wheel and is obviously responsible in my opinion for this tragedy. The “safety driver” did not pay attention to the road as in the video it is showed that she was looking “down and to the side”, even though she said she was “alert” and there is nothing she could have done to avoid the accident. “It was believed that this is the first pedestrian death associated with self-driving technology”. The company has stopped the testing in different cities, unfortunately, technologies advances sometimes brings human casualties to the mix. Self-driving cars should regulate better the “safety drivers” maybe she was looking at her phone instead to pay attention to the
Who’s to blame when the vehicle gets in a severe car accident? Advances in technology, like self-driving cars, will be bad because it causes people to be lazy, it takes away the responsibility of the driver, it takes away the responsibility of the driver, and it can malfunction causing accidents.
According to statistics, motor vehicle accidents are the number one leading cause of unintentional injury-related deaths, making up close to 45% and more than quadrupling all other causes. Although these statistics can be overwhelming knowing that driving a motor vehicle on a daily basis comes with a lot of risk, an individuals chance of injury can be lowered by following basic rules of safety. The American Trauma Society believes that the injury rate could be reduced by 50% if people would simply apply existing information about prevention. Wearing a seat belt while riding in a motor vehicle is by far the easiest way to prevent injury and death, and should be done anyhow because it is a federal law to do so. In addition to seat belts, motor vehicles are equipped with air bags, an automatic form of protection designed to reduce the risk of injury. In the past decade, air bags have saved the lives of close to 3,000 people. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducted a study of real-world motor vehicle crashes and were able to conclude that the combination of seat belts and air bags is 75% effective in preventing serious head injuries and 66% effective in preventing serious chest injuries. Unfortunately for about 100 people in the past decade, their lives were saved at the expense of suffering a less severe injury caused by the air bag itself. However, when proper air bag safety is applied in conjunction of wearing a seat belt properly, most injuries ...
...al capabilities of properly operating a vehicle. Due to advancements in health and nutrition, the amount of elderly people is currently on the rise. There are more and more elderly drivers clinging to the independence that their cars give them meanwhile they are losing the ability to control these vehicles which causes more accidents. CITE THIS today)
In July 12, The New York Times reported a news: “Inside the self-driving Tesla fatal accident”, which again caused enormous debates on whether self-driving cars should be legal or not.
Inventors hope to help people with autonomous cars because “autonomous cars can do things that human drivers can’t” (qtd. in “Making Robot Cars More Human). One of the advantages that driverless cars have is that “They can see through fog or other inclement weather, and sense a stalled car or other hazard ahead and take appropriate action” (qtd. in “Making Robot Cars More Human). Harsh weather conditions make it difficult and dangerous for people to drive, however, the car’s ability to drive through inclement weather “frees the user’s time, creates opportunities for individuals with less mobility, and increases overall road safety” (Bose 1326). With all the technology and software in the car, it can “improve road traffic system[s] and reduces road accidents” (Kumar). One of the purposes for creating the driverless car was to help “make lives easier for senior citizens, people with disabilities, people who are ill, or people who are under influence of alcohol” (Kumar). It can be frightening to know that that we share share our roads with drivers that could potentially endanger our lives as well as other people’s lives. How can people not feel a sense of worry when “cars kill roughly 32,000 people a year in the U.S.” (Fisher 60)? Drivers who text while driving or drink and drive greatly impact the safety of other people, and Google hopes to reduces the risk of accidents and save lives with the
The journey from that idea and the airbags that we have now has been very long. Today, airbags are a necessary in every car and are designed to act as an extra safety device aside of seat belts. But a lot of people are looking quite sceptical at the air bag safety, because there was a lot of accidents where the airbag didn’t react or it did react, but it didn’t help but killed the driver or the passenger. Since 1991 there was 238 counted just because of air
It might be hard to see where the self-driving car could have issues with safety but an interesting question arises when an accident is unavoidable. The question posed is “How should the car be programmed to act in the event of an unavoidable accident? Should it minimize the loss of life, even if it means sacrificing the occupants, or should it protect the occupants at all costs? Should it choose between these extremes at random?” (ArXiv). This is a very interesting question surrounding ethics. I’m not sure if there is a right answer to the question, which could stall the self-driving car industry. Before self-driving cars are mass produced a solution needs to be found to the question about unavoidable accidents. Although this question is a problem, there may not be a need to address the problem. It is said that “"driver error is believed to be the main reason behind over 90 percent of all crashes" with drunk driving, distracted drivers, failure to remain in one lane and falling to yield the right of way the main causes.” (Keating). Self-driving cars could eliminate those problems entirely and maybe with all cars on the road being self-driving cars, there would be no “unavoidable accidents”. Safety is the main issue the self-driving car is trying to solve in transportation and seems to do a good job at
These technologies have made driving an easier and enjoyable experience, as well as reducing our chances of getting into accidents. The research presented in the following article “Driven to Distraction [in car technology]” provided surprising conclusions. Professor John D. Lee from the University of Iowa states the following issue: “Technology is changing very quickly. Many of these things coming into the car were not designed to be used in it. ”(Edwards 8).
Automotive executives touting self-driving cars as a way to make commuting more productive or relaxing may want to consider another potential marketing pitch: safety (Hirschauge, 2016). The biggest reason why these cars will make a safer world is that accident rates will enormously drop. There is a lot of bad behavior a driver exhibit behind the wheel, and a computer is actually an ideal motorist. Since 81 percent of car crashes are the result of human error, computers would take a lot of danger out of the equation entirely. Also, some of the major causes of accidents are drivers who become ill at the time of driving. Some of the examples of this would be a seizure, heart attack, diabetic reactions, fainting, and high or low blood pressure. Autonomous cars will surely remedy these types of occurrences making us
The engineering that goes into a driverless car covers all areas of mechanics, computing software and so on which still tends to frighten some drivers of its monstrosity on the inside. In the article “Google Cars Becoming Safer: Let the Robots Drive” it states that, “The economic lift from ridding the roads of human-driven vehicles would be over $190 billion per year. That would primarily come from reducing property damage caused by low-speed collisions”(Salkever). The point is that when driverless cars hit the road the cost of low-speed collision and save consumers money will be reduced. In the article “ Google Driverless Cars Run Into Problem: Cars With Drivers” Slakever states that “One Google car, in a test in 2009, couldn’t get through a four-way stop because its sensors kept waiting for other (human) drivers to stop completely and let it go. The human drivers kept inching forward, looking for the advantage — paralyzing Google’s robot”(Bosker). Current drivers have never followed the rule of the road, which have made the road more prone to any accident. Drivers have found the upper hand on not following traffic laws that makes manufacturing driverless car more meticulous to decrease accidents and breaking traffic laws. The fact that driverless car sensors can detect the errors of other human driven car is extraordinary. Human driven cars are trying to stick to the status quo of the roads when in reality human driven cars are breaking valuable innovation that will make the roads safe for generations to
When I look past what's inside the Ford Focus LX Premium versus the SE Comfort, I can see many of these technological advances for what they really are: unnecessary risks. The fact is that the number of accidents (and deaths) increases as a direct result of driver distractions, and more technology only provides more distraction. Unfortunately, manufacturers realize a high tech GPS system can sell for a lot more than an improved seat belt. Protection of human safety should be the primary concern of transportation regulations and in-vehicle technology developments. So while other people continue to drive while calling in to check voice mail, worrying about finishing off the Big Gulp Slurpee, and buying a GPS navigator to find the fastest route to grandma's house, I'll know I drove away from the dealership with the safest option: focus.