5 ms·

In an article that has obviously been well thought out and reasoned, it's disappointing to see the author using the current accident rates as reported by self d

In an article that has obviously been well thought out and reasoned, it's disappointing to see the author using the current accident rates as reported by self driving car developers as if they were a representative sample and subsequently used as a lemma for further arguments. Simply put, the current rates reported aren't a representative sample. In fact they aren't even naively semi-representative. They are deliberately skewed by development patterns, and that happens to give them an optimistic accident rate. SDCs in testing do not drive the same miles that humans drive. They don't drive in the same conditions, in the same traffic, and not on the same roads...and they have engineers ready to take over at any time, which is a luxury that the baseline does not have. Engineers carefully select the scenarios where they do drive by taking the scenarios that they know the cars can handle well and then slowly pushing the upper bound of that range. In other words, they choose the easy and work up to the hard. It is yet to be demonstrated how well they will perform once they are closer to driving the miles that humans drive.

nostrademons 10y ago
Dunno if you live in Silicon Valley, but here in the Mountain View / Sunnyvale area, they absolutely do drive the same miles that humans drive, in the same conditions. There is about the same chance that you'll see a WayMo self-driving car on your trip as that you'll see a VW Bug, perhaps slightly higher. There's a significantly higher chance than seeing a Tesla or McLaren, even though both of those marques are quite popular in Silicon Valley. They don't do highways yet, but most of the time, I don't either.
- saosebastiao 10y ago
  By virtue of the typical working hours of engineers alone, they are unlikely to drive in the same conditions, roads, and traffic as normal drivers. Their operating hours skew heavily towards driving in city traffic during non rush hours. They skew heavily away from driving at night, during rush hour, during lunch times, and during extreme weather events. I would also feel comfortable assuming that even if they put an effort into driving at similar times as other people, they would still skew away from scenarios that engineers find boring. Good luck getting them to drive in 2mph stop and go on 880 or 101 during rush hour. Seeing them on the road commonly is not a guarantee that their driving patterns are representative. Their driving patterns are deliberately designed to not be representative...not because it helps their metrics, but because it is the only feasible path for development. Back when the first DARPA challenge was around, the only objective was to make it from point A to point B in an empty, flat, and mostly obstructionless desert (and everybody failed). By the time of the last challenge, they had to navigate a suburban-ish area devoid of people but populated with demarcated roads and carefully placed obstructions. Now they are on relatively slow city streets with actual people but controlled times/conditions. So this phenomenon is obviously not new...SDC engineers have known this from the beginning. But now we have a new class of SDC boosters that don't actively involve themselves with development and don't seem to realize that their metrics are representative of the current state of SDCs and not a guarantee that can reliably extrapolate.
  - seizethecheese 10y ago
    > [T]hey would still skew away from scenarios that engineers find boring. Good luck getting them to drive in 2mph stop and go on 880 or 101 during rush hour I doubt this is because engineers would find it boring. Probably just bad PR to be seen increasing traffic for your experiment.
  - Gargoyle 10y ago
    >I would also feel comfortable assuming that even if they put an effort into driving at similar times as other people, they would still skew away from scenarios that engineers find boring. Good luck getting them to drive in 2mph stop and go on 880 or 101 during rush hour. If you don't know their actual testing regimes, you should probably avoid assuming they ignore obvious test cases.
  - nostrademons 10y ago
    I've personally seen them on the road at twilight (which is rush hour, by nature), during lunch time, and in pouring rain. They don't do highways yet, because most of the test vehicles are limited to 25mph for safety reasons (which is infuriating when you're stuck behind them in a 35mph zone). They do get plenty of practice at stop & go though.

nostrademons 10y ago

Dunno if you live in Silicon Valley, but here in the Mountain View / Sunnyvale area, they absolutely do drive the same miles that humans drive, in the same conditions. There is about the same chance that you'll see a WayMo self-driving car on your trip as that you'll see a VW Bug, perhaps slightly higher. There's a significantly higher chance than seeing a Tesla or McLaren, even though both of those marques are quite popular in Silicon Valley. They don't do highways yet, but most of the time, I don't either.

saosebastiao 10y ago
By virtue of the typical working hours of engineers alone, they are unlikely to drive in the same conditions, roads, and traffic as normal drivers. Their operating hours skew heavily towards driving in city traffic during non rush hours. They skew heavily away from driving at night, during rush hour, during lunch times, and during extreme weather events. I would also feel comfortable assuming that even if they put an effort into driving at similar times as other people, they would still skew away from scenarios that engineers find boring. Good luck getting them to drive in 2mph stop and go on 880 or 101 during rush hour. Seeing them on the road commonly is not a guarantee that their driving patterns are representative. Their driving patterns are deliberately designed to not be representative...not because it helps their metrics, but because it is the only feasible path for development. Back when the first DARPA challenge was around, the only objective was to make it from point A to point B in an empty, flat, and mostly obstructionless desert (and everybody failed). By the time of the last challenge, they had to navigate a suburban-ish area devoid of people but populated with demarcated roads and carefully placed obstructions. Now they are on relatively slow city streets with actual people but controlled times/conditions. So this phenomenon is obviously not new...SDC engineers have known this from the beginning. But now we have a new class of SDC boosters that don't actively involve themselves with development and don't seem to realize that their metrics are representative of the current state of SDCs and not a guarantee that can reliably extrapolate.
- seizethecheese 10y ago
  > [T]hey would still skew away from scenarios that engineers find boring. Good luck getting them to drive in 2mph stop and go on 880 or 101 during rush hour I doubt this is because engineers would find it boring. Probably just bad PR to be seen increasing traffic for your experiment.
- Gargoyle 10y ago
  >I would also feel comfortable assuming that even if they put an effort into driving at similar times as other people, they would still skew away from scenarios that engineers find boring. Good luck getting them to drive in 2mph stop and go on 880 or 101 during rush hour. If you don't know their actual testing regimes, you should probably avoid assuming they ignore obvious test cases.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  I've personally seen them on the road at twilight (which is rush hour, by nature), during lunch time, and in pouring rain. They don't do highways yet, because most of the test vehicles are limited to 25mph for safety reasons (which is infuriating when you're stuck behind them in a 35mph zone). They do get plenty of practice at stop & go though.