Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans • Hacker News Board

Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans

#241

Post by barrysteve » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 12:21 PM UTC

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #98

harhargange wrote: post #89

To the folks particularly in US obsessed about driverless cars, why don't you instead focus on public transport, which is by default "driverless" for millions of people if you ignore a couple of metro/train drivers per 1000s of people. The point of a driverless car, from what I understand, is having end-to-end connectivity without the need to drive which is pain. I live in a place where public transport already has l…

For completion. You actually have real driverless public transport systems functioning for many years now with autonomous metro and rail systems across the world. It is obviously a much easier problem to solve due to its constraints. What is interesting to me is that we have completely altered our transport networks to fit the new paradigm of cars +100 years ago, widening roads, asphalting roads, building motorways,…

Are you implying that the 1950s Detroit vision of a car centric world, was acutally a plan to lay a framework for driverless cars in the future?

The Catholics used to build churches that took 300yrs to construct, long after the death of the original designer.

It is not difficult to imagine 1950s roads turning into the cyberpunk cities, full of autonomous vehicles.

Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans

#242

Post by pb7 » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 12:59 PM UTC

6stringmerc wrote: post #207

They drive less. They drive fewer routes. Your shit car can’t navigate the high five here in Dallas so it’s not a fair comparison. Kiss my ass with that cherry picking.

You’re right, Dallas is the final boss of terrible infrastructure design but if Texans can figure it out, anyone can, especially Waymo.

Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans

#243

Post by soco » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 1:01 PM UTC

dagw wrote: post #172

soco wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let me understand this: waiting stuck in traffic in your car (self-driving or not) is acceptable, but waiting stuck in traffic in a bus is not?

In my car I have a comfy seat and can control my environment (noise, temperature etc.) and whom I share the space with. On the bus I'm often standing and crammed in between dozens of other people. Also the really big problem isn't being stuck in traffic on the bus, but being stuck standing in the cold at the bus stop waiting for the bus that is stuck in traffic or cancelled.

The solution I see working (I live it) is separate bus lanes and regular commuter trains. Because I can work just fine (laptop and phone) sitting in that seat, what I cannot do in my car regardless of the noise/temperature/mates. But yes, I know people who drive to work because they enjoy driving. I instead enjoy my time gains (working while commuting is a significant time gain).

Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans

#244

Post by baseballdork » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 1:04 PM UTC

braiamp wrote: post #238

kortilla wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dozens of billions are being poured in. That’s we got the California high speed rail connecting nowhere to nothing and BART just barely making it to San Jose. None of that still fixes the last mile problem of suburbia, and buses aren’t a solution. They are slow, too infrequent, and generally uncomfortable.

Have you been to Switzerland? Their public transport system is a mix of busses/short trams and long trip trains. They aren't precisely a high density urban country. They have suburban sectors. The difference here is that they don't make walking a punishment. You can count that everywhere you want to go there's a walking path, even when going off-road. Yes, it's not 100%, but it doesn't need to be. If you can reach 70…

I've been to Switzerland and it was _great_. Only had to grab an Uber a handful of times. However, Switzerland is like the size of the Houston metroplex. Getting to the corners of Switzerland seems like a problem on a different scale from the US.

Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans

#245

Post by lostlastacc » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 1:35 PM UTC

harhargange wrote: post #89

To the folks particularly in US obsessed about driverless cars, why don't you instead focus on public transport, which is by default "driverless" for millions of people if you ignore a couple of metro/train drivers per 1000s of people. The point of a driverless car, from what I understand, is having end-to-end connectivity without the need to drive which is pain. I live in a place where public transport already has l…

Due to automobile lobbying last century, the American city is very car dependent. At this point, creating good public transport in places with giant urban sprawl seems pretty much impossible without redesigning full cities.. Also Insane amount of money interested keeping it car-focused, which driverless cars fit in to.

This does not explain why there is no good trains in highly populated corridors like Quebec City–Windsor Corridor tho.

Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans

#246

Post by aembleton » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 1:49 PM UTC

swhalen wrote: post #55

There are considerations beyond just comparing the number of collisions. If a human driver causes an accident, they can be held to account through a legal process. If a self-driving car hurts or kills someone, who is held accountable?

> If a self-driving car hurts or kills someone, who is held accountable?

Whoever is paying for the insurance.

Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans

#247

Post by zw123456 » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 1:53 PM UTC

brabel wrote: post #86

zw123456 wrote: post #67

Computers don't drink, don't text and don't have road rage, so their claims might be plausible in a broad statistical way. My guess is that if you excluded humans that drink, text, have anger issues etc. then the humans probably win out.

The goal here is not to see who is the best under imaginary conditions, it's to determine whether driverless cars are safe in real life as currently deployed. The question you're asking is irrelevant because a world in which all humans don't drink, text or have anger issues is not real.

On the contrary. That's the exact point I am making by positing the obvious unrealistic assumption that one could exclude drinkers (or other substance) distracted drivers etc.

Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans

#248

Post by zw123456 » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 1:57 PM UTC

fragmede wrote: post #82

zw123456 wrote: post #67

Computers don't drink, don't text and don't have road rage, so their claims might be plausible in a broad statistical way. My guess is that if you excluded humans that drink, text, have anger issues etc. then the humans probably win out.

Unfortunately, we can't exclude humans that drink, text, have anger issues etc. from driving on the road with you. At any point, the driver next to you could have a stroke, pass out from doing drugs, have a panic attack, etc.

Right, that's the point, although there have been some ideas where a self driving car could prevent those people from driving if they have been previously identified as having committed those offenses. Example, someone convicted of drunk driving could continue to be employed and travel to work (assuming mass transit is not an option) and continue to pay taxes but would not be allowed to drive. Probably impractical now but if the technology were to advance far enough then it could possibly reduce fatalities due to things like drunk driving. Just a thought.

Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans

#249

Post by zw123456 » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 2:01 PM UTC

IshKebab wrote: post #72

zw123456 wrote: post #67

Computers don't drink, don't text and don't have road rage, so their claims might be plausible in a broad statistical way. My guess is that if you excluded humans that drink, text, have anger issues etc. then the humans probably win out.

Maybe, but do you have a way to exclude those humans from life?

Actually, the idea would be to NOT exclude them from life. Just the opposite. Say a person is convicted of drunk driving. Maybe they need to travel to work where mass transit is not an option but we want them to continue to be employed, support their family, pay taxes and so forth. If they were to have the option of using a self driving car or car service at a reasonable price, then such people can continue to be productive members of society and maybe even that might allow them to afford to address their underlying issue. Maybe I am being a Pollyanna but we begin by imagining.

Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans

#250

Post by dagw » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 2:15 PM UTC

soco wrote: post #243

dagw wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my car I have a comfy seat and can control my environment (noise, temperature etc.) and whom I share the space with. On the bus I'm often standing and crammed in between dozens of other people. Also the really big problem isn't being stuck in traffic on the bus, but being stuck standing in the cold at the bus stop waiting for the bus that is stuck in traffic or cancelled.

The solution I see working (I live it) is separate bus lanes and regular commuter trains. Because I can work just fine (laptop and phone) sitting in that seat, what I cannot do in my car regardless of the noise/temperature/mates. But yes, I know people who drive to work because they enjoy driving. I instead enjoy my time gains (working while commuting is a significant time gain).

Because I can work just fine (laptop and phone) sitting in that seat

I've been commuting to school or work by public transport since I was 16 and in 4 different European cities. Getting any seat is uncommon, let alone one where pulling out a laptop and getting work done was even an option. The only public transport option where I can conceivably see getting work done are the intercity trains, and then only if you get on at one of the very early stops before the train fills up.

Personally, 'can I get to the office by foot or bike' is one of the most important questions I ask myself when looking for a new job (or house). Commuting by car and public transport are both suboptimal.