Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives • Hacker News Board

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#711

Post by chasd00 » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 1:45 PM UTC

ninkendo wrote: post #670

Mawr wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The situation in question: "yielding to a pedestrian crossing the driveway entrance to the parking lot on the right-hand sidewalk". Now, really ? As far as backwards logic goes, this is up there. Better to break the law and endanger others because what, some can't drive for shit?

To be honest, it depends. If the pedestrian hasn't gotten to the driveway quite yet, and you're stopping to let them get there and cross out of an abundance of caution, then it may not have been legally required for you to yield. And the motorcyclist behind you could very reasonably have seen the pedestrian too (and reasoned that the pedestrian was still several seconds away from getting to the driveway) and not expe…

> Point is, "more caution" doesn't always mean "less chance of an accident"

that's a fair point. For example, if you're on a highway and traffic is moving at 80mph however the speed limit is 55mph and so you're driving 55 you're doing way more harm than good. Becoming an obstacle to traffic makes an accident more likely regardless of whether you're right or wrong.

Having said that, I do not see the waymo at fault here at all. The other car driver turned a minor accident into a fatality without involving the waymo, pedestrian, or even the motorcyclist. They were just not paying attention and ran over the poor person.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#712

Post by jodrellblank » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 1:53 PM UTC

fragmede wrote: post #584

pfdietz wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only about 1 in 8 people globally lives in a large (> 10 million people) city. Most people who live in cities are in cities with Exactly how many live in cities at all is determined by where you drawn the cutoff at which it's no longer a city.

And my answer to that is, if your area where people live isn't able to support a bus line, it's not a city. That means there's a lot of reality big towns out there.

Why does "supporting a bus line" mean the bus needs to make enough revenue from riders to pay for it but the area can have roads, traffic lights, roadsigns, etc. subsidised by the taxpayer without needing to make a profit from vehicle drivers paying for it? The deck is stacked by moto-normativity in favour of cars.

Highway 401 in Ontario is the largest highway in North America, up to 18 lanes wide. It moves 500,000 cars per day; fewer than a single subway line.

The incredible cost of building and maintaining it, the cost of 500,000 cars and fuelling them, the enormous land use, the environmental cost of the concrete, the idea that you could have a pleasant place to live or work near it... but we can't have trains which move more people, less pollutingly, less dangerously, in less space, are nicer to be around, and overall costs less, because it isn't profitable? As if Highway 401 is profitable?

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#713

Post by ericyd » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 1:57 PM UTC

> Researchers estimate roughly half of human crashes go unreported, and up to one-third of injury accidents, because drivers hope to avoid insurance price hikes. That potentially skews safety numbers in favor of human drivers.

I am not understanding the phrasing of this section. If humans under-report crashes, and autonomous vehicles accurately report crashes, then that would mean the rates are more favorable towards autonomous vehicles rather than humans, right?

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#714

Post by jp191919 » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 1:58 PM UTC

Gareth321 wrote: post #544

johnfn wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a biker, I've had human drivers intentionally try to drive me off the road or hit me. Neither driver education nor higher test standards will solve that problem.

I've been following Tesla communities and a common response to using FSD is that it makes people nicer drivers. Thousands of people admitting that they can be angry drivers. That they get frustrated in traffic and can take risks or be aggressive on the road. With FSD they almost universally claim to be calmer, care less about being cut off, and almost never experience road rage.

Tesla FSD is almost life changing, I'm so calm on my commute now. It's great. If I get cut off I don't care, I'm not driving.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#715

Post by cbruns » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 2:01 PM UTC

ericyd wrote: post #713

> Researchers estimate roughly half of human crashes go unreported, and up to one-third of injury accidents, because drivers hope to avoid insurance price hikes. That potentially skews safety numbers in favor of human drivers. I am not understanding the phrasing of this section. If humans under-report crashes, and autonomous vehicles accurately report crashes, then that would mean the rates are more favorable towards…

Your interpretation is correct and not at odds with their phrasing. They mean that reported safety numbers for humans are skewed towards appearing more safe than they actually are.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#716

Post by drob518 » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 2:04 PM UTC

OroPla wrote: post #680

drob518 wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we want adoption, we would need it be placed in individual vehicles and it should look at removing driver liability. Liability is the biggest issue holding back widespread adoption, IMO. The tech is pretty good already. Yet accidents are still going to happen. The question is m who pays when they do? The “driver”? The taxi operator? The car manufacturer? It’s all unclear at best right now.

Who pays when a natural occurring rock slide totals your car? There are already situations where no one can be held liable.

Yes, but those situations are irrelevant to this issue. The question is, who pays when your self-driving car injures or kills somebody? I assure you that the answer to that question is not “nobody.”

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#717

Post by himinlomax » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 2:05 PM UTC

dkdbejwi383 wrote: post #603

himinlomax wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 2h train ride is not a problem, but what is is the trip to and from the stations. A 2h autonomous car ride removes that entirely.

In most places where train travel is an option, you'll probably be a 10-15 min walk from a station, or a 5 minute cycle, or a short connecting trip on a bus or tram. Multi-modal trips and short walks are normal in a lot of places - I know this isn't the case in America because of how American owned mapping apps like Google Maps go out of their way to hide routes with more than a 5 minute walk involved.

Just by what you're describing, that 2h train ride is in fact close to a 3h walking+waiting for the tram+climbing stairs+waiting for the train+finding a seat+climbing more stairs+finding another seat+climbing more stairs+finding another seat+walking+waiting for the bus etc.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#718

Post by speedstyle » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 2:06 PM UTC

phoghed wrote: post #639

speedstyle wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people want this. Could you justify this? e.g. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2024.2325386 (N=1890): "What first comes to mind when you hear the term self-driving vehicles?" (coded free-text) 17% positive, 34% neutral, 49% negative "How would you feel about riding in a self-driving vehicle instead of the existing ways you travel?" 28% comfortable, 15% neutral, 53% uncomfortable "How would you feel about using the…

Looking at the companion reports it seems to me like boomers are bringing the numbers down. Once they die off we’re good to go.

I think the authors above put their opinion well: "Developers of self-driving vehicles work with a particular idea of a possible and desirable future. Members of the public may not share the assumptions on which this is based … Many respondents present alternative representations of relationships between the technology, other road users and the future. Rather than accepting a dominant approach to public engagement, which seeks to educate members of the public away from these views, we instead propose that these views should be seen as a source of social intelligence, with potential constructive contributions to building better transport systems. Anticipatory governance, if it is to be inclusive, should seek to understand and integrate public views rather than reject them as irrational or mutable."

I don't have an issue with autonomous vehicles (though I think we should also reduce the overall proportion of trips by car) but yes, obviously you need societal buy-in. "People want this" into 'some don't but they'll die' is hardly a serious approach to policies that impact everyone.

Anyway, I don't think your interpretation is supported by that data. Every age group responded net negatively, and age wasn't the strongest factor – for instance, women were less than half as likely as men to be comfortable sharing roads with self-driving vehicles