471–480 of 691 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
pretty high if people won't use them because they don't trust them.
If you think governments can't simply legislate away people's freedom to drive in the service of corporate profits or what's "best for them", you haven't read the news lately.
Less drunk, distracted, angry, and/or sleepy drivers on public roads, with overall significantly less crashes? Sign me up!
Many comments in this thread are variations on a theme of "self-driving cars don't need to be perfect, they just need to be better than human drivers, who aren't actually all that great." I think it would be nice if this were true, and I suppose it is from an actuarial perspective, but it's also an extremely flawed point. From a public confidence perspective, it doesn't matter if a self-driving car crashes one tenth,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>human drivers, who aren't actually all that great. A large fraction of human drivers are actually all that great. The majority of accidents/deaths are caused by a minority of terrible drivers, or good drivers who found themselves in terrible but rare circumstances. The majority of drivers drive hundreds of thousands of miles without any accidents that were their fault, or even any accidents at all. In other words, i…
Do you have a source for that?
Many comments in this thread are variations on a theme of "self-driving cars don't need to be perfect, they just need to be better than human drivers, who aren't actually all that great." I think it would be nice if this were true, and I suppose it is from an actuarial perspective, but it's also an extremely flawed point. From a public confidence perspective, it doesn't matter if a self-driving car crashes one tenth,…
Though I disagree because people expect a lot of things and alternative outcomes happen when there are incentives (Current cars, airplanes, and elevators come to mind). Waymo seems to be aware of this from this recent video. [1]
Many comments in this thread are variations on a theme of "self-driving cars don't need to be perfect, they just need to be better than human drivers, who aren't actually all that great." I think it would be nice if this were true, and I suppose it is from an actuarial perspective, but it's also an extremely flawed point. From a public confidence perspective, it doesn't matter if a self-driving car crashes one tenth,…
>human drivers, who aren't actually all that great. A large fraction of human drivers are actually all that great. The majority of accidents/deaths are caused by a minority of terrible drivers, or good drivers who found themselves in terrible but rare circumstances. The majority of drivers drive hundreds of thousands of miles without any accidents that were their fault, or even any accidents at all. In other words, i…
I wonder what humans will actually do better than AI in 50 years. I have a personal theory but I'm a bit off topic here
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me the solution to that is obvious and far better than the current status quo. The cars are all attached to a network and when an emergency service vehicle needs to get somewhere in a hurry there is a coordinated effort to move vehicles off the required route. As things stand emergency vehicles have to cope with a reasonable minority of people who completely panic and actually impede their progress.
This has to work even if network reception is weak or absent. You can't be certain that 100% of cars will receive the signal and get themselves out of the way in time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's easy to beat the mean human driver and to demonstrate with solid data that you've done so. In 2019 in California, there were 1.06 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Any self-driving automobile technology that doesn't have at least 1 billion vehicle miles of data is in no position to claim that it is safer than human drivers and less likely to kill people. Self driving cars don't make th…
I'd be curious to see a source for your number
https://www.ots.ca.gov/ots-and-traffic-safety/score-card/
California Numbers:
* 3,606 traffic fatalities in 2019.
* 1,066 Alcohol-impaired driving fatalities (fatalities in crashes involving a driver or motorcycle rider with a blood alcohol concentration, or BAC, of 0.08 or higher) in 2019.
* 620 Unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities in all seating positions in 2019.
* 164 Teen motor vehicle fatalities (age 16-19) in 2019.
* 972 Pedestrian fatalities in 2019.
* 133 Bicycle fatalities in 2019.
assuming the above (alcohol-impaired, unrestrained passenger, teens, pedestrian, bicycle) are all all poor-driver related that leaves 651 traffic fatalities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be curious to see a source for your number
I see why LMGTFY had its day in the sun: you can literally paste the first sentence of parent’s post into DDG, and the first link answers your question. Hell, the preview answers your question, you don’t even need to click it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To me it is sufficient to beat the top 20% of drivers. It's interesting that you set the threshold there (I presume you meant 'beat the bottom 80% of drivers'). Rationally, we should be happy if their driving performance is above average. I fear that the public (and the courts and the insurers, etc) will require airline levels of per-mile safety and still be wary.
I would be fine with beating average but as soon as this thing kills someone, I want there to be a significant difference in accident rate so it does not end up in regulatory hell.
If a human driver kills someone / injures someone / damages property, people get satisfaction or resolution when the human is punished - insurance increases, license points, jail, etc.
But when a self-driving car - even if it's better-than-average - does something wrong, there's nobody to punish and no retribution to exact, so people will be left feeling unsatisfied. That's why the bar is going to need to be so much higher.
Many comments in this thread are variations on a theme of "self-driving cars don't need to be perfect, they just need to be better than human drivers, who aren't actually all that great." I think it would be nice if this were true, and I suppose it is from an actuarial perspective, but it's also an extremely flawed point. From a public confidence perspective, it doesn't matter if a self-driving car crashes one tenth,…
Watching the Waymo video just changed my viewpoint.
They have a "Pull Over" lever in the back seat.
Would I trust a self-driving vechicle without Lidar--probally no.
Would I use use a self driving vechicle commuting, and around the city--yes. Two driving chores I hate. I hate them to the point that the philosophical argument over dying by my own hands, or a computer, is put in the trunk.
On a personal note, the thought of a computer driving me off a cliff while driving to Stinson beach is not something I would chance. Even if they are statistically better drivers than most humans.
I can't imagine tumbling down a cliff, and thinking if only I drove today.
I still foresee most trucking jobs, and most driving jobs, completely gone in a few years.
Yes--it's time for a Basic Income.