You're right, replacement day has not arrived yet. (Especially not by tesla). But it is coming. And I suspect this generation of drivers wont consider stepping aside, much less actually doing so.
But my kids didn't have the same desire to drive that I did. For them it wasn't a big deal, there were alternatives (like uber). They did learn, but only pretty much cause they had to. My grandkids probably won't learn. My great grand kids certainly won't. No more than I can ride a horse.
Sure, it's not today, butvyhe day is coming. Its not far away now (on human time lines, not necessarily tech time lines).
Until then, enjoy the ride ;)
But eliminating human drivers isn't just eliminating that. It's also eliminating humans who are not tired, who are making good judgment calls, and who do have the patience and consideration to drive responsibly. Unless you are claiming there are no such humans anywhere, which is ridiculous (the majority of human drivers meet the requirements the majority of the time).
For self-driving technology to be truly viable, in other words, it's not enough for it to outperform humans who are tired and impaired. It has to outperform humans at their best. Otherwise the humans who aren't tired and impaired will have no good reason to use it, and will have an ironclad objection to being forced to.
This is a different argument from the one in the article. You are arguing that you will outperform the AI and therefore should remain the driver. And you want proof to change your mind.
Both are reasonable and I agree.
The author isn't demanding proof that it is statistically better before switching. They object to giving up control and view that as a moral imperative, "no matter how “safe” the computerized features are."
For most industries zero deaths is the norm, so clearly computers have to be at least that good. Frankly we're so collectively bad at driving that we'd be an order of magnitude better if the computers only killed 100 000 a year.
In over 100 years of driving humans have, at best, gotten worse. We continue to kill despite cars being better and safer.
On the other hand 100 years of improvement to self-driving cars will (I predict) drop those deaths to under 1000.
Referring to the effects after a collision, and not the cause of the collision itself, is valid, but secondary.
There is nothing special about you that makes you more able to drive cars than anyone else and especially compared to a computer. In a few years it will considered crazy and unsafe to drive your own car and comments like this will be chuckled at.
In a few years? Surely you jest. Self-driving tech is nowhere near being able to outperform all human drivers, which is what would be required for your statement to make sense.