5 ms·

No, I would not. We, as a society, are about to learn some hard lessons about software. As in, deuteronomy-level lessons - things that will be (figuratively)

by rsync 10y ago

No, I would not. We, as a society, are about to learn some hard lessons about software. As in, deuteronomy-level lessons - things that will be (figuratively) carved into stone. We will gain a new appreciation for the value of human decision making.

maxerickson 10y ago
We will gain a new appreciation for the value of human decision making. A pretty big chunk of automobile collisions are directly attributable to poor human decision making. For example, nearly 1/3 of fatal collisions in the US involve a driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher.
- Retric 10y ago
  That statistic includes drunk drivers who where not at fault. ed: And if using the NTSB numbers sober drivers with drunk passengers. PS: Drunk driving is stupid and dangerous, but poor statistics bother me. Drunk drivers are more often night time drivers adjusting for that closer to ~1/4.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    So only 1/4 of traffic fatalities are attributable to a single category of poor decisions. Oh boy. Do you have a good source that tracks fault in alcohol involved collisions? (I'm not trying to argue, I'm curious to look at it)
    - Retric 10y ago
      I don't want to defend driving while impaired in any way. Sadly, it's still really common to drive while impaired. 121 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year Just remember, even if you are sober, driving home from a party at 3AM is still significantly more dangerous than average.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        So 1/4 is just a seat of the pants estimate? I sloppily implied causation above, but I didn't actually say 1/3 of crashes are attributable to alcohol, I said that a "big chunk" are attributable to poor decisions and separately pointed out the large percentage of fatal crashes involving alcohol.
        Retric 10y ago
        Sure, this is a spin heavy subject which is why the term is related. People want to fix a major problem and IMO go overboard when the underlying problem needs no exaggeration. Anyway, 1/4 is from someone with access to raw data who spent some time trying to get less biased numbers. So, wider error bars than NTSB estimates, but less biased assumptions. Drunk driving is still a major issue, but there is a reason people are still spouting 20 year old data. When trying to make a point there is a tendency to cherry pick to the point of distortion.
  - Nadya 10y ago
    "Not at fault" is also not equivalent to "could not have prevented the accident". For example - I was nearly rear ended by another driver, but I noticed they were failing to brake and pulled into an oncoming traffic lane (after checking there was no oncoming traffic of course). I would not have been at fault but also managed to avoid the accident altogether. Also just because you aren't "legally" at fault doesn't necessarily mean the accident wasn't a result of poor judgement on your behalf. For example, slamming on one's brakes noticing you're about to miss a turn you need to take and you get rear ended. You won't be legally found "at fault" but the accident is largely "your fault" for unpredictable driving, slamming on your brakes, and having been so inattentive to have nearly missed your turn.
    - aetherson 10y ago
      This is true, but keep in mind when you look at the safety measures of driverless cars that they're likely being judged via these same, flawed metrics. Google's driverless cars have been in a lot of accidents! Yes, most of them have been "not the fault of the software," but the same caveats you just described apply to the software as well. So I think we're at least comparing apples to apples.
  - grzm 10y ago
    That statistic includes drunk drivers who where not at fault. Would you elaborate on this? I read this as meaning that the statistic includes drunk drivers who were involved in a fatal accident but weren't determined to be at fault for causing the accident. Am I understanding your intent correctly? Assuming this to be the case, I agree that there should be some additional nuance here. That said, it would also need to take into account whether or not their inebriation prevented them from acting defensively to avoid the accident. I'm not sure how this would be done.
    - Retric 10y ago
      National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: "NHTSA defines fatal collisions as "alcohol-related" if they believe the driver, a passenger, or non-motorist (such as a pedestrian or pedal cyclist) had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.01% or greater." "NHTSA specifically notes that alcohol-related does not necessarily mean a driver or non-occupant was tested for alcohol and that the term does not indicate a collision or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_St... Also of note: "On average, about 60% of the BAC values are missing or unknown. To analyze what they believe is the complete data, statisticians simulate BAC information.[7] Drivers with a BAC of 0.10% are 6 to 12 times more likely to get into a fatal crash or injury than drivers with no alcohol."
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    I used the numbers that Google Search stuck in an infobox. (According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 35,092 people died in traffic crashes in 2015 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,265 people who were killed in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). Among the people killed in these drunk driving crashes, 67% (6,865) were in crashes in which at least one driver in the crash had a BAC of .15 or higher. From https://responsibility.org/get-the-facts/research/statistics/drunk-driving-fatalities/ https://responsibility.org/get-the-facts/research/statistics... So unless they are gravely misrepresenting the numbers, it's 29% of fatalities involving a driver with an illegal BAC. (again not trying to argue, I'm sure there are fatalities involving alcohol that are not attributable to the impairment, just adding clarification about where my statement came from).
    - Retric 10y ago
      First, I love that HN is a place where we get that kind of clarification so Thank You. Anyway, to be pedantic 29.0% is closer to 25.0% -4% than 33.3% + 4.3%. But, it's also 'close to' 1/4, so I don't have an issue with your phrasing. However, as you note this is 'involving' a drunk driver. So, that 29% is inflated by cases where the sober driver struck a drunk one. </ done beating a decaying equine.>
- rsync 10y ago
  "For example, nearly 1/3 of fatal collisions in the US involve a driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher." This is a flawed comparison because failing to update your software or keep your tires inflated or clean off your sensors would also be human decisions that could lead to adverse outcomes with self-driving cars. Non-driving-operation decisions like that are applicable to both regular and self-driving cars.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Driving while impaired is not a non-driving-operation decision. It's an ongoing driving decision. The driver is poorly assessing their ability to safely complete upcoming operations. Over and over. I also expect that automatic systems will greatly improve the level of maintenance of vehicles (for example, mandatory tire pressure monitoring already does...).
  - Gargoyle 10y ago
    >This is a flawed comparison because failing to update your software or keep your tires inflated or clean off your sensors would also be human decisions that could lead to adverse outcomes with self-driving cars. It's incredibly simple to remove humans from those decisions. Just have the self-driving code refuse to engage until the issue is resolved.
    - sib 10y ago
      And then Grandma dies of her heart attack because you can't rush her to the hospital because one tire is 3psi underinflated? Most of these issues aren't binary.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Call 911. Calling an ambulance is currently the recommended thing to do in severe medical emergencies anyway. For other concerns about availability, adjust maintenance inspections and routines as necessary. For example, if you live somewhere there is no ambulance service and someone is of uncertain health, maybe inspect the tires every day (this sounds tedious but look at the alternative you are proposing, having a tire blow out while delivering dying Grandma to the ER).
hx87 10y ago
> As in, deuteronomy-level lessons - things that will be (figuratively) carved into stone. Bad example--the majority of the lessons in Deuteronomy are shit, especially in a modern society, and were almost never taken literally through most of their history.

by rsync 10y ago

maxerickson 10y ago

We will gain a new appreciation for the value of human decision making. A pretty big chunk of automobile collisions are directly attributable to poor human decision making. For example, nearly 1/3 of fatal collisions in the US involve a driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher.

Retric 10y ago
That statistic includes drunk drivers who where not at fault. ed: And if using the NTSB numbers sober drivers with drunk passengers. PS: Drunk driving is stupid and dangerous, but poor statistics bother me. Drunk drivers are more often night time drivers adjusting for that closer to ~1/4.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  So only 1/4 of traffic fatalities are attributable to a single category of poor decisions. Oh boy. Do you have a good source that tracks fault in alcohol involved collisions? (I'm not trying to argue, I'm curious to look at it)
  - Retric 10y ago
    I don't want to defend driving while impaired in any way. Sadly, it's still really common to drive while impaired. 121 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year Just remember, even if you are sober, driving home from a party at 3AM is still significantly more dangerous than average.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      So 1/4 is just a seat of the pants estimate? I sloppily implied causation above, but I didn't actually say 1/3 of crashes are attributable to alcohol, I said that a "big chunk" are attributable to poor decisions and separately pointed out the large percentage of fatal crashes involving alcohol.
      - Retric 10y ago
        Sure, this is a spin heavy subject which is why the term is related. People want to fix a major problem and IMO go overboard when the underlying problem needs no exaggeration. Anyway, 1/4 is from someone with access to raw data who spent some time trying to get less biased numbers. So, wider error bars than NTSB estimates, but less biased assumptions. Drunk driving is still a major issue, but there is a reason people are still spouting 20 year old data. When trying to make a point there is a tendency to cherry pick to the point of distortion.
- Nadya 10y ago
  "Not at fault" is also not equivalent to "could not have prevented the accident". For example - I was nearly rear ended by another driver, but I noticed they were failing to brake and pulled into an oncoming traffic lane (after checking there was no oncoming traffic of course). I would not have been at fault but also managed to avoid the accident altogether. Also just because you aren't "legally" at fault doesn't necessarily mean the accident wasn't a result of poor judgement on your behalf. For example, slamming on one's brakes noticing you're about to miss a turn you need to take and you get rear ended. You won't be legally found "at fault" but the accident is largely "your fault" for unpredictable driving, slamming on your brakes, and having been so inattentive to have nearly missed your turn.
  - aetherson 10y ago
    This is true, but keep in mind when you look at the safety measures of driverless cars that they're likely being judged via these same, flawed metrics. Google's driverless cars have been in a lot of accidents! Yes, most of them have been "not the fault of the software," but the same caveats you just described apply to the software as well. So I think we're at least comparing apples to apples.
- grzm 10y ago
  That statistic includes drunk drivers who where not at fault. Would you elaborate on this? I read this as meaning that the statistic includes drunk drivers who were involved in a fatal accident but weren't determined to be at fault for causing the accident. Am I understanding your intent correctly? Assuming this to be the case, I agree that there should be some additional nuance here. That said, it would also need to take into account whether or not their inebriation prevented them from acting defensively to avoid the accident. I'm not sure how this would be done.
  - Retric 10y ago
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: "NHTSA defines fatal collisions as "alcohol-related" if they believe the driver, a passenger, or non-motorist (such as a pedestrian or pedal cyclist) had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.01% or greater." "NHTSA specifically notes that alcohol-related does not necessarily mean a driver or non-occupant was tested for alcohol and that the term does not indicate a collision or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_St... Also of note: "On average, about 60% of the BAC values are missing or unknown. To analyze what they believe is the complete data, statisticians simulate BAC information.[7] Drivers with a BAC of 0.10% are 6 to 12 times more likely to get into a fatal crash or injury than drivers with no alcohol."
- maxerickson 10y ago
  I used the numbers that Google Search stuck in an infobox. (According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 35,092 people died in traffic crashes in 2015 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,265 people who were killed in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). Among the people killed in these drunk driving crashes, 67% (6,865) were in crashes in which at least one driver in the crash had a BAC of .15 or higher. From https://responsibility.org/get-the-facts/research/statistics/drunk-driving-fatalities/ https://responsibility.org/get-the-facts/research/statistics... So unless they are gravely misrepresenting the numbers, it's 29% of fatalities involving a driver with an illegal BAC. (again not trying to argue, I'm sure there are fatalities involving alcohol that are not attributable to the impairment, just adding clarification about where my statement came from).
  - Retric 10y ago
    First, I love that HN is a place where we get that kind of clarification so Thank You. Anyway, to be pedantic 29.0% is closer to 25.0% -4% than 33.3% + 4.3%. But, it's also 'close to' 1/4, so I don't have an issue with your phrasing. However, as you note this is 'involving' a drunk driver. So, that 29% is inflated by cases where the sober driver struck a drunk one. </ done beating a decaying equine.>
rsync 10y ago
"For example, nearly 1/3 of fatal collisions in the US involve a driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher." This is a flawed comparison because failing to update your software or keep your tires inflated or clean off your sensors would also be human decisions that could lead to adverse outcomes with self-driving cars. Non-driving-operation decisions like that are applicable to both regular and self-driving cars.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Driving while impaired is not a non-driving-operation decision. It's an ongoing driving decision. The driver is poorly assessing their ability to safely complete upcoming operations. Over and over. I also expect that automatic systems will greatly improve the level of maintenance of vehicles (for example, mandatory tire pressure monitoring already does...).
- Gargoyle 10y ago
  >This is a flawed comparison because failing to update your software or keep your tires inflated or clean off your sensors would also be human decisions that could lead to adverse outcomes with self-driving cars. It's incredibly simple to remove humans from those decisions. Just have the self-driving code refuse to engage until the issue is resolved.
  - sib 10y ago
    And then Grandma dies of her heart attack because you can't rush her to the hospital because one tire is 3psi underinflated? Most of these issues aren't binary.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Call 911. Calling an ambulance is currently the recommended thing to do in severe medical emergencies anyway. For other concerns about availability, adjust maintenance inspections and routines as necessary. For example, if you live somewhere there is no ambulance service and someone is of uncertain health, maybe inspect the tires every day (this sounds tedious but look at the alternative you are proposing, having a tire blow out while delivering dying Grandma to the ER).

hx87 10y ago

> As in, deuteronomy-level lessons - things that will be (figuratively) carved into stone. Bad example--the majority of the lessons in Deuteronomy are shit, especially in a modern society, and were almost never taken literally through most of their history.