Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

No, when people's lives are at stake, I extremely disagree about calling that "bikeshedding".



Please make an effort to read and understand my point.

Yeah, maybe there was a case when a couple peoples' lives were at stake but nothing happened.

The real issue is that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of peoples' lives are at stake RIGHT NOW, under conditions that are much less controlled than what people are deriding as uncontrolled conditions. But people are griping about the 1-2 instead of the 10,000-400,000.

How is this not dead simple to understand? I don't get it.


> Please make an effort to read and understand my point.

Please don't assume disagreement implies I didn't make an effort. I understand your point, I just vehemently disagree with it. Bringing up the word "bikeshedding" when discussing putting people in danger of death is just something I can not agree with.

> Yeah, maybe there was a case when a couple peoples' lives were at stake but nothing happened.

This is exactly why I so vehemently disagree. If we found all the people who were in traffic with them at the time, do you think they'd agree that doing experiments in public traffic next to them is a purely aesthetical issue? Recklessness isn't defined by the outcome, but by the possible outcome.

> The real issue is that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of peoples' lives are at stake RIGHT NOW, under conditions that are much less controlled than what people are deriding as uncontrolled conditions. But people are griping about the 1-2 instead of the 10,000-400,000.

Yes, and I'm saying both are very important issues. Experiments on public roads in actual traffic are something that should not ever happen. I'm also not sure I'd put the amount of people they endangered in the 1-2 range, since there was at least one other person in the car, one in the truck behind, and others in the cars that passed them.

I also wouldn't go so far as calling this controlled, since that usually means a controlled setting, safety precautions and such.

> How is this not dead simple to understand? I don't get it.

As said, I do understand, I just disagree. It would also make it much easier to talk about this if you weren't trying to insult me and others.

I agree that the flaw itself is a very big issue. I disagree that the way the experiment was done isn't. And nobody here is arguing that it's good that the cars have that fault, so it's quite natural for the discussion here to be around topics people disagree on.

You know what the perfect location and media would have been for such an experiment? A television car show with a dedicated track and a big audience of people driving cars.


I would like to see how these researchers presented it to their review board.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: