Hacker News Reader

Comment by stevenjgarner | Hacker News Reader

Why? Are you worried from a liberty/privacy standpoint? "Smart" EV's are demonstrated to be significantly safer than "dumb" EVs. Waymo’s 2025/2026 data shows an 80–90% reduction in injury-causing crashes compared to human drivers in the same cities. [1, 2, 3, 4]

[1] https://www.reinsurancene.ws/waymo-shows-90-fewer-claims-tha...

[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11305169/

[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39485678/

[4] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-of-Swiss-Re-h...

View on HN

Personally I’m not very keen on owning a vehicle the manufacturer can completely brick at will

So liberty then. I don't disagree with you, but this modern flashpoint in the classic debate between individual liberty and collective safety does bring up the question what is saving 50,000+ lives annually actually worth in terms of loss of personal freedoms? I am personally struggling with this debate having lost loved ones in this manner.

Remote bricking of cars does not save 50,000 lives.

That is not the argument being made. We are discussing how "dumb" vehicles (e.g. vehicles that contribute to 50,000+ fatalities annually) provide independence, privacy and freedom that "smart" vehicles (e.g. vehicles with self-driving that can be bricked at will) do not ensure.

Also you are conflating thing the poster may not have intended. I’ve not heard anyone complain about collision avoidance systems, antilock brakes etc. But spying packages, and touchscreen dash, hell no.

> I’ve not heard anyone complain about collision avoidance systems, antilock brakes etc

I hear people on this site complain about these things all the time.

I’m sure it’s happened in the history of the world, but otherwise approaching zero.

That actually is exactly the argument. GP posted about liberty concerns, he was met with claims of saving 50,000 lives.

> "Smart" EV's are demonstrated to be significantly safer than "dumb" EVs. Waymo’s 2025/2026 data shows an 80–90% reduction in injury-causing crashes compared to human drivers in the same cities.

It's important to realize the reason for that.

Crashes by human drivers are hugely disproportionately by people who are driving drunk or with insufficient sleep or significant distractions etc. In other words, it's not a difference in the cars, it's a difference in the drivers. Waymo can beat a drunk driver, and therefore can beat the human driver arithmetic mean which has the drunk drivers averaged in.

That doesn't mean it's any safer than driving an ordinary car when you're not drunk.

I assume GP meant cars with internet connectivity features, not (real) self driving tech.

The assertion that 'I just hope "dumb" EV's become a thing soon' led me to a different assumption. The ultimate aspiration of a "smart" EV is self-driving, which incorporates Internet connectivity features (e.g. digital mapping, over the air updates, etc).

"Smart" in all other classes of purchases typically means IoT / Internet connected.

The computerization of formerly mechanical features making it harder to DIY repair is a separate but also valid concern, though I'm not sure how it applies to EVs.

Added: see https://x.com/IntCyberDigest/status/2011758140510142890 for exactly the kind of thing that nobody wants.

Waymos are driverless vehicles. We're talking about always-connected human-driver vehicles. The comparison is not apt.

You're missing "reliability" in your rhetorical dilemma.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com