It's worth noting that while relatively few RTAs result in death, significant injury is around 30 times the death rate (My informal research). A proportion of these injuries result in ongoing disability and economic consequences, eg, brain injury, inability to work, inability to walk without a stick, long term medical treatment.
There is also a significant moral issue here since the death or injury is often not to, or not only to, the "culpable" driver but to their passengers, or, to random people whose families may not just endure personal loss but also ongoing economic consequences. If driverless vehicles was an option it would reduce the social cost of kicking bad drivers off the road. It could also allow a workable zero alcohol policy for drivers. On the downside, it might increase alcohol consumption, but at least that is self-inflicted damage. The reduction of road trauma noted by BRD is a great success story. A lot of the measures used to achieve this - like more expensive safer cars, compulsory seat belts, drink driving laws, lower speed limits, slower safer road design, more policing - have been resented and opposed as restrictions to liberty. And they are. Driverless cars are another step along this path. Jim _______________________________________________ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
