5 ms·

the human average is around 185 crashes and 1 fatality per 100 million miles, which is pretty damn impressive considering the huge variation in terrain and skil

the human average is around 185 crashes and 1 fatality per 100 million miles, which is pretty damn impressive considering the huge variation in terrain and skill. I'll be very surprised if any self driving tech right now can even dream of coming close to these stats.

w0utert 10y ago
And that's just the human average, which isn't actually representative of anything because the 'average driver' does not exist. I don't have any statistics but I'm pretty sure the majority of accidents/incidents are distributed over a small minority of drivers. I remember a recent article [1] about some statiscal research into self-driving cars that indicated that at least 275 million miles of autonomous driving, in all conditions, without serious accidents, are needed to conclusively prove that they are safer than human drivers. Statistics are always difficult and hard to translate to conclusions, but in the case of autonomous cars it seems like advocates really willing to bend them to the extreme to make a point about how autonomous cars will be safer than humans, even though it's impossible to say anything sensible about that except that 'the average driver' as a goal for safety seems like a very bad target to aim at. [1] http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/04/car-makers-cant-drive-their-way-to-safety-with-self-driving-cars/ http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/04/car-makers-cant-drive-th...
- tremon 10y ago
  I don't have any statistics but I'm pretty sure the majority of accidents/incidents are distributed over a small minority of drivers That's a good point. It makes sense that the standard we want self-driving cars to achieve is the crash rate on average driving conditions, not the average driving crash rate. The latter is lowered by drunk driving, drugged driving, joyriding and other willfull neglect.

5 ms·

the human average is around 185 crashes and 1 fatality per 100 million miles, which is pretty damn impressive considering the huge variation in terrain and skil

by Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0 10y ago

w0utert 10y ago
And that's just the human average, which isn't actually representative of anything because the 'average driver' does not exist. I don't have any statistics but I'm pretty sure the majority of accidents/incidents are distributed over a small minority of drivers. I remember a recent article [1] about some statiscal research into self-driving cars that indicated that at least 275 million miles of autonomous driving, in all conditions, without serious accidents, are needed to conclusively prove that they are safer than human drivers. Statistics are always difficult and hard to translate to conclusions, but in the case of autonomous cars it seems like advocates really willing to bend them to the extreme to make a point about how autonomous cars will be safer than humans, even though it's impossible to say anything sensible about that except that 'the average driver' as a goal for safety seems like a very bad target to aim at. [1] http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/04/car-makers-cant-drive-their-way-to-safety-with-self-driving-cars/ http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/04/car-makers-cant-drive-th...
- tremon 10y ago
  I don't have any statistics but I'm pretty sure the majority of accidents/incidents are distributed over a small minority of drivers That's a good point. It makes sense that the standard we want self-driving cars to achieve is the crash rate on average driving conditions, not the average driving crash rate. The latter is lowered by drunk driving, drugged driving, joyriding and other willfull neglect.