5 ms·

Agree. The "skill level" of an autonomous vehicle is continuous, not binary. I could totally see people buying a car based on how trustworthy it is (crash stat

Agree. The "skill level" of an autonomous vehicle is continuous, not binary. I could totally see people buying a car based on how trustworthy it is (crash statistics). Perhaps there will be some legally standard terms or discrete statistical thresholds makers will have to meet in order to legally claim certain levels of autonomy.

semi-extrinsic 10y ago
> I could totally see people buying a car based on how trustworthy it is (crash statistics). The problem with such an idea is that even if you sell 100 000 cars in the first year after launch (really good), you'll have to wait for about five years before you have the statistics to claim you car has any better than average safety record. But after those five years, your model is going to be near end-of-sales, so it won't matter. And that's with safety records today. As cars keep getting safer, this gets worse and worse. Remember, NHTSA averages today are over the entire car population. Today that population has a significant tail of cars from the late 80s or early 90s without basic safety measures like airbags and crumple zones. These will have a much higher fatality rate. But it ten years, when those are mostly gone from the roads, it's going to be ludicrously difficult to make statistically valid statements about car model safety while that model is still being sold.
- gnarbarian 10y ago
  What is stopping from robotcars inc. from claiming "no autonomous driving AI from our company has been at fault or caused an accident ever." There is safety of the vehicle in an accident and safety of the autonomous driver which are getting conflated. You don't need to wait for the glacially paced NHTSA to post your accident statistics to brag about your AI avoiding accidents. >But after those five years, your model is going to be near end-of-sales, so it won't matter. I don't get this reasoning at all. Brand reputation matters a great deal. For example, Toyota put out a new Tacoma this year but people already assume it will be reliable and safe based on Toyota's track record. They don't have to start all over again and win all the customers back. While models change and structural safety will change slightly model to model The brain of the car will continue to improve and we won't be starting over because they change the body lines a little bit.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    I hope these autonomous vehicles refuse to drive if the vehicle isn't meeting certain safety standards. The last thing a company needs is headlines being made because some jackass took their car out when the brakes were worn down to nubs or the tires were completely bald. Incidents of that sort with a human driver are easily explained. If that happened with a self-piloting car it could scare people off the very idea. The cars should have some kind of basic self-preservation tests.
    - gnarbarian 10y ago
      They would probably refuse to drive autonomously if it detects the maintenance period has been exceeded without being reset or there is some sensor or mechanical issue detected. But you will always be able to drive it manually in case of emergency.
    - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
      As I said in the comments above, the single most effective measure for reducing accidents would be checking for alcohol- or drug-influenced drivers. Those cause much more accidents than mechanical failures. Yet even though "alcohol-locks" have been mature tech for five years, no car manufacturer nor politician dares to make it default, simply because there would be public outrage. Also, stuff like brake pads or tires completely worn down already comes with basic safety features: both will cause the car to make relatively loud, screeching/rumbling ominous noises.
      - frenchy 10y ago
        As a person who almost never drinks alcohol (that stuff tastes nasty) an alcohol-lock would just be a big annoyance.
        semi-extrinsic 10y ago
        Well, current-gen tech is. But an AI/camera based version that quickly checks your pupil dilation when you put the engine in gear could work just fine. It could also catch drugs other than alcohol. Or you could do near-infrared spectroscopy built into the gear lever (this is already being pushed by the NHTSA, and will probably be in cars in a few years). Or it could even have a selective alcohol-lock using current-gen tech that only triggers a check if alcohol is detected in the air circulating in the car.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  In the case of Apple, they will have plenty of early adopters willing to buy those batches of cars.
astrodust 10y ago
It will probably be "collisions per million miles" or "fatalities per million miles" or something of the sort. Right now those numbers are roughly tabulated by insurance companies, but they're not really published as part of the boilerplate posted on the car where miles-per-gallon are often shown. If people knew they were buying a death trap they'd probably give it some sober second thought.

semi-extrinsic 10y ago

> I could totally see people buying a car based on how trustworthy it is (crash statistics). The problem with such an idea is that even if you sell 100 000 cars in the first year after launch (really good), you'll have to wait for about five years before you have the statistics to claim you car has any better than average safety record. But after those five years, your model is going to be near end-of-sales, so it won't matter. And that's with safety records today. As cars keep getting safer, this gets worse and worse. Remember, NHTSA averages today are over the entire car population. Today that population has a significant tail of cars from the late 80s or early 90s without basic safety measures like airbags and crumple zones. These will have a much higher fatality rate. But it ten years, when those are mostly gone from the roads, it's going to be ludicrously difficult to make statistically valid statements about car model safety while that model is still being sold.

gnarbarian 10y ago
What is stopping from robotcars inc. from claiming "no autonomous driving AI from our company has been at fault or caused an accident ever." There is safety of the vehicle in an accident and safety of the autonomous driver which are getting conflated. You don't need to wait for the glacially paced NHTSA to post your accident statistics to brag about your AI avoiding accidents. >But after those five years, your model is going to be near end-of-sales, so it won't matter. I don't get this reasoning at all. Brand reputation matters a great deal. For example, Toyota put out a new Tacoma this year but people already assume it will be reliable and safe based on Toyota's track record. They don't have to start all over again and win all the customers back. While models change and structural safety will change slightly model to model The brain of the car will continue to improve and we won't be starting over because they change the body lines a little bit.
- astrodust 10y ago
  I hope these autonomous vehicles refuse to drive if the vehicle isn't meeting certain safety standards. The last thing a company needs is headlines being made because some jackass took their car out when the brakes were worn down to nubs or the tires were completely bald. Incidents of that sort with a human driver are easily explained. If that happened with a self-piloting car it could scare people off the very idea. The cars should have some kind of basic self-preservation tests.
  - gnarbarian 10y ago
    They would probably refuse to drive autonomously if it detects the maintenance period has been exceeded without being reset or there is some sensor or mechanical issue detected. But you will always be able to drive it manually in case of emergency.
  - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
    As I said in the comments above, the single most effective measure for reducing accidents would be checking for alcohol- or drug-influenced drivers. Those cause much more accidents than mechanical failures. Yet even though "alcohol-locks" have been mature tech for five years, no car manufacturer nor politician dares to make it default, simply because there would be public outrage. Also, stuff like brake pads or tires completely worn down already comes with basic safety features: both will cause the car to make relatively loud, screeching/rumbling ominous noises.
    - frenchy 10y ago
      As a person who almost never drinks alcohol (that stuff tastes nasty) an alcohol-lock would just be a big annoyance.
      - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
        Well, current-gen tech is. But an AI/camera based version that quickly checks your pupil dilation when you put the engine in gear could work just fine. It could also catch drugs other than alcohol. Or you could do near-infrared spectroscopy built into the gear lever (this is already being pushed by the NHTSA, and will probably be in cars in a few years). Or it could even have a selective alcohol-lock using current-gen tech that only triggers a check if alcohol is detected in the air circulating in the car.
charlesdm 10y ago
In the case of Apple, they will have plenty of early adopters willing to buy those batches of cars.

astrodust 10y ago

It will probably be "collisions per million miles" or "fatalities per million miles" or something of the sort. Right now those numbers are roughly tabulated by insurance companies, but they're not really published as part of the boilerplate posted on the car where miles-per-gallon are often shown. If people knew they were buying a death trap they'd probably give it some sober second thought.