Are driverless cars trustable on roads?
Debate Rounds (3)
However, I do not view this as a legitimate issue. I would like to remind everyone that at the moment, drivers are susceptible to drugs, alcohol, mistakes, road rage, poor vision, and their vehicles can still be affected by malfunctions, even if there is a human driver.
As such, if anything, I personally see it being that driverless cars would in fact make the roads safer, as they would be capable of providing reliable safe driving, would move at appropriate speeds such that there is no pointless slow downs, and allow who would've been the driver to do work or even just enjoy the scenery of their trip.
This first source is wikipedia, which may be deemed as incredible, but I have chosen to use it because it provides many general details rather accurately, and can give a good overview of the subject. Now as presented in the article, the vehicles are already constructed, and continue to be modified, improved, and worked upon at all times. While there have been 2 accidents reported, both were stated to be faults of human operators (one of a human taking manual control of the car, and the other where a human operated car rear-ended the google car). As such, the basis of finance is not a valid dispute, due to the fact of the vehicles already built being true.
Now I have not personally read this article, but I feel as it will most likely illustrate the point I'm making here, if through nothing but the title alone. As it stands, I have only talked about the google car. While it is incredible, other companies are doing the same thing, creating an effective scientific technology race. But not only is there a high-speed, high-incentive, high-reward system in place for companies to make the best possible automatic system, governments are beginning to legalize these vehicles on the roads. This means that even the governments are willing to believe in the efficiency and reliability of the driverless cars.
Wikipedia is first off a very incredible site to get information from. Many people can put their opinions and write what they want on it so i do not think that you or I should get any information off of it.
You say the two google cars were in accidents because of two human drivers. Yes both of these were the peoples fault you and I both cant just think that when these driverless cars do come about that everyone is going to buy one because they are going to cost thousands of dollars that a lot of people don't have. So there are going to be a lot of accidents and it may be the humans fault or it may be the driverless cars fault.
But, as I previously stated, the purpose of that article was not for any engineering statistics or specifics such as that, but rather for the general idea that the cars do exist, something that you cannot deny simply on the basis that wikipedia is not an oxford document.
Continuing on to your point, once again, it fails to have any real merit to it. You agree that the two faults were human, and that when these cars come out, most people will not have them and continue to be in crashes. But that does in no way affect the reliability of the vehicles. In fact, if anything, it proves the almost need for them in our society.
In conclusion, I fail to see any relevant points brought forth by the opposition, as any and all claims have been either factually or logically disproven. On the other hand, my points of the technology creating a safer environment on the roads has not only remained standing, but even been somewhat supported by side opposition.
I have no further points.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's main point was that it reduces accidents caused by human error, which Con failed to rebut. Con's points were not as strong as Pro's.
Vote Placed by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had arguments that were good. Instead of refuting pro's claim, con criticized the source. Wikipedia is reliable and there are references at the end of the article. Even if con didn't like pro's sources, con could have made only a small point about it and moved on. Not doing so makes me choose pro. I have nor did I have any biased about this debate. I simply have not done my research on the topic. Just saying to point out that I am unbiased here. I hope con takes my criticisms well.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.