SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A very small survey of people of different ages suggests that there are age and gender differences in the acceptance of riding in automated cars. In summary, 2,600 people in the US replied and of them 38% of the men and just 16% of women would be happy to ride in an automated vehicle. About a quarter of respondents said they would feel safe in a driverless car while around two thirds said they would not travel unless there was a driver. No mention was made about their opinions of sharing the road with these massive projectiles when driving themselves in traditional cars.
Source : Driverless cars: Men and women have very different opinions on letting go of the wheel
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Men and Women Have Very Different Opinions on Automated Cars
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 136 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
If little else, the brain is an educational toy.
-- Tom Robbins
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Thursday February 01 2018, @05:21PM (21 children)
...or maybe men and women just have different attitudes to being alone in a car (whether for safety or social reasons) or their responsibility to passengers (possibly more likely to be kids in the case of women) or more strongly associate driving with personal freedom (Grandma didn't approve of women driving cars) or (heaven forfend) are, on average, less interested than men in having the latest tech gadget. Maybe women have more confidence in their driving ability than men (either rightly, and/or as a reaction to the "women driver" stereotype).
Or maybe the study was just skewed somehow... selection bias is almost impossible to avoid in a voluntary survey and it won't show up in your p value.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 01 2018, @06:42PM (20 children)
I think it's about *control*. when you're driving, you're in control and are responsible for your own actions. With *someone else* driving (whether that be a spouse, a relative, a taxi driver, an expert system, a bus driver or an airline pilot), they are in control.
Back in 2004, I chatted with a high school classmate who'd driven just about 2,000Km to attend our reunion. When I asked her why she drove rather than flew, she was shocked I'd even suggest it, given the events of September 11, 2001. She was adamant that flying just wasn't safe.
I pointed out that even with *all* the deaths (including those on the ground, not just the passengers) from airplane crashes/incidents, more people (by a factor of at least ten) died in automobile accidents every year than when flying.
Did that make a difference? Nope. Because she was in control behind the wheel of her car. It doesn't make logical sense, but it does make human sense.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Redundant) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 01 2018, @07:08PM (3 children)
After doing a quick survey of myself, 0 people have ever been involved in an accident of any scope while in a car I was driving. I do not know the same is true of a random pilot.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @08:02PM (1 child)
Screw autonomous cars, how's the research on cloning TMB to drive 'em all going?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 01 2018, @09:37PM
Considering the fucker's only got one helix, surprisingly difficult. The ribosomes we're using to replicate the template keep going on strike; something about ethics and morals and things humankind would best not unleash on itself or something...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Touché) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 01 2018, @08:25PM
You prove my point, Buzzard. Thanks!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @08:52PM (4 children)
A better reason to not fly is that you don't want your rights violated by TSA thugs. That agency needs to be abolished, but it won't be.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 02 2018, @12:41AM (3 children)
People who drive 2000 kilometers to a high school reunion are probably not worried about the TSA. Those of us who drive 2000 miles have more cause to be concerned with the TSA.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 02 2018, @04:34AM
Uhhh...not so much Runaway. I generally use SI units whenever possible. And yes, I went to high school in the US, as did (obviously) my classmate. And no, she didn't drive from Canada or Mexico.
Regardless, while we all hate the TSA (well I do, at least), my main concern when driving is not dying. I generally don't have that fear when flying.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday February 02 2018, @11:57AM (1 child)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 02 2018, @11:03PM
This probably borders on pedantry - but the US doesn't exactly use the imperial system. Like a lot of other things, we borrowed heavily from the old empire, but adapted stuff to suit ourselves. Would you rather buy an imperial gallon or a US gallon for the same price?
Hmmmm - OK, so looking at this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_units [wikipedia.org] I find that a land mile in England was the same as a land mile in the US. Then again, this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems [wikipedia.org] claims there were differences in our linear measures.
I guess I could figure it all out if I spent a little time on it. Not that the differences really amount to anything.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday February 02 2018, @02:07AM (9 children)
The popular wisdom that flying is safer may not be totally accurate. For distanced traveled, yes, flying is safer. But I have heard that if measured by hours traveled, flying is about equal to driving in safety.
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Friday February 02 2018, @03:42AM (5 children)
Per-trip, flying is more dangerous. In other words, every time you step into an airplane you are much more likely to die than when you get into a car. The big difference is that the typical person gets into a car hundreds, if not thousands of times a year, but into an airplane only a few times a year (if that).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Friday February 02 2018, @04:50AM (4 children)
Nope. In the US during 2015, for example, more than 35,000 people died in automobile crashes [dot.gov]. Zero people died in airplane crashes [ntsb.gov] during that same period.
Hmmm...let's see. I guarantee you that whatever values (okay positive numbers, which are the only ones that make sense in this context) you use for the denominators, 35,000/x is always greater than 0/y. Math is cruel, I know.
On a per-mile basis (and in absolute numbers), flying is, and has been -- for decades -- *much* safer than driving.
http://traveltips.usatoday.com/air-travel-safer-car-travel-1581.html [usatoday.com]
But don't believe me. Look at the statistics in the links I've helpfully provided (oh, and you're welcome) above. Even better, don't believe my links either. Do your own research. Or don't. It's no skin off my nose either way. Someone (you, in this case) being wrong on the Internet isn't a call to duty for me. [xkcd.com]
Have fun. Maybe go for a nice drive?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Informative) by TheRaven on Friday February 02 2018, @12:00PM (1 child)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday February 02 2018, @03:24PM
If only there was a tunnel under the Bering Strait! See the unspoiled scenic wilds of Alaska and Siberia, travel the length of the Canadian Rockies and cross Russia's 11 time zones, retrace the route the Mongols took to Europe, and totally avoid the Atlantic Ocean. Sounds like fun!
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday February 02 2018, @02:38PM (1 child)
Your point is valid in terms of passengers in commercial service. However, there were fatal aviation accidents in the US in 2015 including that of commercial planes (without passengers):
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20150211-0 [aviation-safety.net]
And there were fatalities of passengers in public use aircraft, just not on a commercially established carrier route:
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20150625-0 [aviation-safety.net]
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20150816-1 [aviation-safety.net] (had military personnel but was a contractor flight).
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20150915-0 [aviation-safety.net]
Sorry for the nitpick, but the auto side counts all fatalities, not just commercial carriers. I still think the concept of your point is valid, though it would be interesting to map it out as a function of fatalities per travelling person per trip or something similar.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 02 2018, @06:25PM
Fair enough. I agree. All fatalities should have been included, not just "commercial" flights. I wonder though, given the source/destination (Miami to Venezula with a stopover in the Turks and Caicos), how many cars can make that trip (I suspect that would be zero, except, perhaps these guys [wikipedia.org] although that's dubious).
IIUC, at least two of the three crashes you listed were, in fact, commercial flights (i.e., with paying passengers on a plane owned by corporations which used the vehicles for commercial passenger flights, whether scheduled or not).
No apologies necessary. We should try (and I, apparently, failed) to include *all* relevant data to enable an apples-to-apples comparison.
Despite the fact that few people (in comparison to scheduled airline flights) fly in chartered/general aviation flights, it's useful to note *all* casualties.
It's instructive to note that two of the four crashes you cite:
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20150625-0 [aviation-safety.net]
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20150915-0 [aviation-safety.net]
occurred in Alaska, where (as I observed while in Alaska -- If there are any Soylentils who live there, please do chime in) in many cases automobile transit isn't just difficult, but is, in fact impossible.
The Miami to Venezuela flight you cite (which included a stopover in the Turks and Caicos) is, apparently (I tried several map/directions sites) not directly reachable solely by automobile.
Regardless, as you intimate, in absolute numbers of crashes and absolute number of deaths, automobile fatalities still overwhelm airplane fatalities by orders of magnitude.
tl;dr: In three of the four examples you cite, automobile transit wasn't even an option. As such, it seems that in those cases, it's not fair to compare that at all. More than half the deaths in those four cited examples were from the flights where automobile transit wasn't an option.
All that said, if someone wishes to believe they are safer in their car than on a plane, I won't further try to disabuse you of your delusions. In fact, I encourage you to go out for a nice drive and enjoy yourself. Please drive safely!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 02 2018, @04:57AM (2 children)
It's not "popular wisdom," it's a fact. Flying is safer (by orders of magnitude) than driving. What's more, that's been true for decades.
Please see my reply to another post [soylentnews.org] for relevant links to actual data.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @01:48PM (1 child)
The linked statistics do not contain any data on safety per hour of travel.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 02 2018, @06:26PM
Then I guess you have some work to do, friend.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Friday February 02 2018, @04:00AM
These drivers may in fact be the most dangerous because they simply do not understand the risks of what they are doing. You can be involved in a life-ending collision and never see it coming. You will have no time to react. Being "in control" of the vehicle or not will not matter. These kinds of accidents happen far more frequently than all aircraft related deaths by huge margins.
Overconfidence is a killer. Riding a motorcycle around other vehicles and in bad weather really drives it home. Maybe she should buy a bike.