4 ms·
> What are the on-the-road stats for automatic driving? Aren't they better than human drivers already? Probably not. The fatality rate for urban interstates in
by enoch_r 10y ago
> What are the on-the-road stats for automatic driving? Aren't they better than human drivers already?
Probably not. The fatality rate for urban interstates in 2007 was 0.54 per 100 million miles. That's the type of environment--safe, predictable--where autopilot is most likely to be activated.
With one fatality, we don't have a really accurate picture of Tesla's fatality rate yet, but our best estimate at this point (0.76 per 100 million miles) is higher than that.
http://freakonomics.com/2010/01/29/the-irony-of-road-fear/ http://freakonomics.com/2010/01/29/the-irony-of-road-fear/
- maratd 10y ago> Probably not. Based on what? > With one fatality, we don't have a really accurate picture of Tesla's fatality rate yet Correct. You'd need at least 32 deaths. Until then, there is no "probably" one way or the other. Deaths are also a poor metric, since car safety comes into the picture. You're better off using pure reported accidents instead.
- joe_the_user 10y agoThe point of the parent was that the statistics are not better for auto pilot - they are either worse OR ambiguous/unknown, neither of which qualifies as the "better" of the gp.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- maratd 10y ago> The point of the parent was that the statistics are not better for auto pilot No, that was not his point. He said "Probably not." That's wrong. It's not probably anything. Both the parent and gp are wrong. And the negative tone of your comment is wrong too, since there is no evidence to suggest a problem with autopilot. Wait until the data is in. One dead dude and a couple of accidents doesn't mean a damn thing with millions of miles driven. It might be worse, it might be better. That's not an indictment, that's the case with anything new.