880
Tesla Robotaxis Are Crashing More Than 12 Times as Frequently as Human Drivers
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
880 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
77768 readers
2910 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They're safer than human drivers. Tesla cars absolutely are not. But Waymo cars? They do seem to be.
https://www.npr.org/2025/12/12/nx-s1-5634879/why-one-trauma-doctor-sees-self-driving-cars-as-a-public-health-breakthrough
It's still early. We still need more data. They should be closely watched. But self driving cars do appear to be safer. That's why they are a great idea. They are making driving and roads better.
I don't have the means or motivation to do research now from the couch, so I'll concede you may be correct. However, I think it might be even safer to take those same billions of dollars and invest them in mass transit and other infrastructure changes. That would mean fewer car accidents, less pollution, nicer spaces, healthier people, healthier economies, etc. private car ownership cannot be the long term solution. If it's not an outright dead end, it's certainly a side street instead of high speed rail (if you'll pardon a strained metaphor).
The challenge is one approach only needs to modify the transit infrastructure. The other means having to tear down and build new commercial and residential properties and force people and businesses to relocate in order to have a vaguely sane transit system. My area desperately wanted to do transit but even with rather significant hypothetical funding, they could only service about 10-15% of typical trips. They've settled on a plan that is much less money, but only serves like 5% of trips. To go with that plan, they are making restrictions around zoning to force mid density mixed use construction only, favoring one of the two chosen transit corridors.
They are trying but just people are distributed very awkwardly for mass transit.
It took like 100 years to build the car-hell we have now. It's going to take a lot of time and effort to fix it.
And people are, famously, stupid. They'll fight like hell to avoid change, but once it's in they'll fight like hell to keep that change.
Plus there's a lot of selfish idiots that need to be overridden.