81–90 of 334 posts
Human risk tolerance varies drastically depending on control/participation. What is the acceptable casualty rate of elevators?
This after the police claimed no fault.[1] Not quite sure how those two statements square...
[1] http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/
Good riddance. But I think this is not enough to send a strong message to all those who want to put half baked tech out there in hopes of "disrupting" something.. Also, I really hope all self driving testing is suspended until there is sufficient legal and testing ground work before these things are allowed on roads...
It might surprise you that we were testing (selectively) autonomous cars on the autobahn in Germany in 1991 as part of the Prometheus project. Our tech was nowhere near as good as what's available now and so we compensated by having attentive drivers hovering over the E-stop button. I don't think that stopping testing over a single crash is warranted. Maybe suspend it for a short time while you look into it, but if w…
What on earth do you mean? Clinical trials are stopped all the time when people have adverse reactions & die. And people who die in clinical medical trials are volunteers, consciously aware of their participation, and having signed a waiver. In the U.S., medications may not be sold or administered to the public before being approved via trials. If Uber had to meet the same standards as the medical industry, Elaine Herzberg would be alive, and we wouldn't see autonomous vehicles on the roads for several more years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I was specifically referring to the absurdity of comparing Uber's death rate to humans'.
Not very convincing though - genuine neutral party here without a fully formed opinion and I see no reason that's absurd. If self-driving cars (or brand X of them) are killing people at higher rates per mile, that's not good. I don't see how the statistic is an absurd comparison.
1). He has no sources. [0]
2). Sample size for Uber deaths is 1
3). Miles driven is also sampled at 1
2+3). With only one pair, it is a rate, not "rates" of death by Uber. There has been 1 death by Uber. As opposed to the many deaths motor vehicles accidents have caused
4). Per mile is an arbitrary metric, and in this case, false equivalency due to n=1. One Uber car killed one person. As opposed to millions of cars killing thousands of people. You cannot compare the cumulative results of the many to the single result of the one.
4.1). Per mile is an arbitrary metric. It tells us nothing but how many miles of road must be driven by every single driver until 1 death will happen. How do we measure total miles driven in a practical fashion? We can't. We estimate months later.
4.2) Per mile is an arbitrary metric. It doesn't let us know how quickly deaths happen. Do they happen every 1,000 hours? Every 10 hours? Every 100 years?
6). Comparison is unstandardized. 1 kill per ~100m miles is an aggregate and 1 kill per ~3m miles is an absolute. To normalize the data, you would take all the drivers who killed people, their total aggregate miles driven, and graph them on a standard distribution. Plop Uber in there to get your real likelihood of an Uber killing you compared to a regular human.
I might even do #6 if I can find the data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hopefully Waymo has test drivers that actually pay attention.
Unlike Uber, Waymo has always said they do not believe (based on data and experience) "safety drivers" are a realistic safety measure, because normal human beings do not have the ability to concentrate hard on a task for 8 hours a day that they have absolutely no control/feedback upon. If this is not obvious to you, you have never tried doing such a task. Try it and you will change your mind immediately.
Several comments here making comparisons to human drivers. As if autonomous cars are ok so long as they are at or below parity with humans. This is statistically true but a complete misunderstanding of human nature. Human risk tolerance varies drastically depending on control/participation. What is the acceptable casualty rate of elevators?
But can you explain how, if it is statistically true, can have a different real world outcome?
> “Improving public safety has always been the emphasis of Arizona’s approach to autonomous vehicle testing, and my expectation is that public safety is also the top priority for all who operate this technology in the state of Arizona,” Mr. Ducey said in his letter. “The incident that took place on March 18 is an unquestionable failure to comply with this expectation.” This after the police claimed no fault.[1] Not q…
The state has strong precedence over local authorities though, so whatever some garbage local keystone kops have to say is kind of irrelevant here. Local coppers are known in general to have a bias in favor of motorists for obvious reasons...
Amen. Uber's fatal accident rate is now 50x that of sober human driver's. At their current rate of driving, they can't have a _lower_ rate until 2028! Inexcusable failure of their technology to prevent a human death in the most basic collision avoidance scenario.
What is it compared to human drivers in general? That seems to be the fair comparison as "computer will never be drunk/tired/distracted" is usually cited as one of the benefits of computer-driven vehicles.
Based what I learned about Uber their self driving cars probably run on NodeJS. I'm only half joking.