38 ms·

> if autonomous cars are even just 1 percent safer than humans, we should still be using them We could improve safety by at least 1% in lots of other ways: low

> if autonomous cars are even just 1 percent safer than humans, we should still be using them We could improve safety by at least 1% in lots of other ways: lowering speed limits, requiring rear view cameras, raising the licensing age and requiring more frequent tests, cracking down on drunk driving, etc. Building a fully autonomous vehicle seems unnecessarily elaborate to get a 1% safety.

pdonis 10y ago
> Building a fully autonomous vehicle seems unnecessarily elaborate to get a 1% safety. Not if the vehicle also gives you functionality that doesn't currently exist. Freeing humans from having to do the driving has a huge potential value over and above the value of the safety improvement. The other safety improvements you mention don't; in fact they have less net value than the safety improvement, since they also have costs--not the cost of installing the technology, but the cost of getting where you're going more slowly, having to take driving tests more frequently, having to drive your children around till they reach an older age, etc.
- rimantas 10y ago
  > Freeing humans from having to do the driving has a huge > potential value Except that it does not. What would have a value is getting rid of the need to be in traffic at all, no matter self or not self driving car you use.
  - hueving 10y ago
    >Except that it does not You contradicted here but provided nothing to back it up? Why don't you think freeing people from driving has value?
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    Uh yes it does? Even if there's still traffic, being able to sit through it doing some work/reading a book/watching a movie is a huge advantage compared to babysitting the steering wheel the whole time.
  - pdonis 10y ago
    > What would have a value is getting rid of the need to be in traffic at all, no matter self or not self driving car you use. That has value too, but it's a lot less likely than self-driving cars for the foreseeable future. Plus, even if we grant that not having to be in traffic has value, that doesn't mean that not having to do the driving doesn't also have value. They both do.
ENGNR 10y ago
We have many of those things in Australia (low speed limits and huge fines for doing 3kmh over the limit, automatically sent through mail), but we're seeing this: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-26/speed-enforcement-detrimental-to-road-safety-study-finds/7965082 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-26/speed-enforcement-detr... Most of our safety improvements have come from better car designs like crumple zones, ABS, air bags. The more you go against natural human behaviours and start treating humans like machines with very low tolerances, the more it makes sense to just have machines do the job
- megablast 10y ago
  Australia doesn't have low speed or huge fines. Many places like the city of Sydney doesn't even have red light or speed cameras in the city, it is a joke. Australia does not take traffic crashes seriously at all.
  - threeseed 10y ago
    Sydney absolutely has red light cameras in the city. But to be fair given the level of congestion and quality of the roads I doubt the point of speed cameras at all within the CBD. It's purely revenue raising. And strongly disagree that Australia doesn't take crashes seriously. We are one of the most regulated societies in the world.
  - hueving 10y ago
    Red light cameras have nothing to do with safety, they are an income stream for cities.
- vmarsy 10y ago
  For the past decade you can find a lot of Renault with a speed limiter. Nobody mentioned it here because they probably don't know of it but it's really cool. Like cruise control you set it up, for instance to a maximum speed of 50km/h. Then your car won't go over the speed, unless you decide to override it. I find the design decision they made to let you override the limit very clever : if you press more aggressively on the accelerator pedal, you reach a second max level, which disables the speed limiter. So you feel like originally you already were on full throttle but you have an option to go even more full throttle. Driving in the city, you don't have to look at your speedometer and can focus on the road more
euyyn 10y ago
That sentence you quoted does not mean "I expect autonomous cars will be 1 percent safer than humans."
kchoudhu 10y ago
> requiring rearview cameras Please lord, this. I hate backing up.
- Neliquat 10y ago
  Maybe you shouldn't drive? That is a simple and basic manuver.
  - kchoudhu 10y ago
    I didn't say I can't do it. I just hate doing it. Kind of like coding in javascript.
vmarsy 10y ago
Rear view cameras are already mandatory on all new vehicles: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/31/nhtsa-rear-view-cameras/7114531/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/31/nhtsa-re...
kalleboo 10y ago
Just requiring autonomous emergency braking (which has been around for ages) would reduce accidents by 12%!
hkmurakami 10y ago
I did a brief search of DUI penalties around the world, and it really does seem like the penalty is light everywhere. After losing a friend to a DUI driver, I see DUI as being on the order of a manslaughter. I don't want the 12.5 years in jail that a first offense manslaughter charge carries, but the first offense of a 1 year license suspension seems far too light, and the repeat offense terms are egregiously light. http://www.drink-drive-lose.com/Article.aspx?a=87 http://www.drink-drive-lose.com/Article.aspx?a=87
- andrei_says_ 10y ago
  Is there research linking severity of punishment with frequency of behavior?
- hueving 10y ago
  Texting a driving is worse. I don't understand why so many people rail against people driving after a few drinks but will then play with their phone while driving. Would you be for making the punishment for texting and driving worse than a DUI? It should be if it's relative to the harm it causes.
  - hkmurakami 10y ago
    Yes I would absolutely be in favor of this.
    - hueving 10y ago
      So if we're well into fining based on probability of causing loss of life due to distractions, can we also fine parents with young children (screaming, fighting, vomiting, etc all distract)? How about fining people on a recurring basis if they have a slower reaction time than some threshold? I'm only partially being sarcastic. I'm genuinely curious how these punishments for being impaired scale up. I would rather have someone drive by me after 4 drinks who is not tired rather than a mother running on 2 hours asleep with a screaming baby (sleep deprivation is also as bad as drunk driving). Yet the former would lose his/her license at a checkpoint for a year and face a $10k fine, which you say is too little. But the latter would be waved on through. It all seems very arbitrary and detached from the risk imposed and rather attached to the societal naughtiness of the activity.
BurningFrog 10y ago
No one doubts that SDCs will eventually be at least an order of magnitude safer than us meat bags. If that takes 5 years or 50 less clear. So switching over when they're 1% safer doesn't mean that's the end state. The margin will keep increasing for many years after that.

pdonis 10y ago

> Building a fully autonomous vehicle seems unnecessarily elaborate to get a 1% safety. Not if the vehicle also gives you functionality that doesn't currently exist. Freeing humans from having to do the driving has a huge potential value over and above the value of the safety improvement. The other safety improvements you mention don't; in fact they have less net value than the safety improvement, since they also have costs--not the cost of installing the technology, but the cost of getting where you're going more slowly, having to take driving tests more frequently, having to drive your children around till they reach an older age, etc.

rimantas 10y ago
> Freeing humans from having to do the driving has a huge > potential value Except that it does not. What would have a value is getting rid of the need to be in traffic at all, no matter self or not self driving car you use.
- hueving 10y ago
  >Except that it does not You contradicted here but provided nothing to back it up? Why don't you think freeing people from driving has value?
- aninhumer 10y ago
  Uh yes it does? Even if there's still traffic, being able to sit through it doing some work/reading a book/watching a movie is a huge advantage compared to babysitting the steering wheel the whole time.
- pdonis 10y ago
  > What would have a value is getting rid of the need to be in traffic at all, no matter self or not self driving car you use. That has value too, but it's a lot less likely than self-driving cars for the foreseeable future. Plus, even if we grant that not having to be in traffic has value, that doesn't mean that not having to do the driving doesn't also have value. They both do.

ENGNR 10y ago

We have many of those things in Australia (low speed limits and huge fines for doing 3kmh over the limit, automatically sent through mail), but we're seeing this: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-26/speed-enforcement-detrimental-to-road-safety-study-finds/7965082 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-26/speed-enforcement-detr... Most of our safety improvements have come from better car designs like crumple zones, ABS, air bags. The more you go against natural human behaviours and start treating humans like machines with very low tolerances, the more it makes sense to just have machines do the job

megablast 10y ago
Australia doesn't have low speed or huge fines. Many places like the city of Sydney doesn't even have red light or speed cameras in the city, it is a joke. Australia does not take traffic crashes seriously at all.
- threeseed 10y ago
  Sydney absolutely has red light cameras in the city. But to be fair given the level of congestion and quality of the roads I doubt the point of speed cameras at all within the CBD. It's purely revenue raising. And strongly disagree that Australia doesn't take crashes seriously. We are one of the most regulated societies in the world.
- hueving 10y ago
  Red light cameras have nothing to do with safety, they are an income stream for cities.
vmarsy 10y ago
For the past decade you can find a lot of Renault with a speed limiter. Nobody mentioned it here because they probably don't know of it but it's really cool. Like cruise control you set it up, for instance to a maximum speed of 50km/h. Then your car won't go over the speed, unless you decide to override it. I find the design decision they made to let you override the limit very clever : if you press more aggressively on the accelerator pedal, you reach a second max level, which disables the speed limiter. So you feel like originally you already were on full throttle but you have an option to go even more full throttle. Driving in the city, you don't have to look at your speedometer and can focus on the road more

euyyn 10y ago

That sentence you quoted does not mean "I expect autonomous cars will be 1 percent safer than humans."

kchoudhu 10y ago

> requiring rearview cameras Please lord, this. I hate backing up.

Neliquat 10y ago
Maybe you shouldn't drive? That is a simple and basic manuver.
- kchoudhu 10y ago
  I didn't say I can't do it. I just hate doing it. Kind of like coding in javascript.

vmarsy 10y ago

Rear view cameras are already mandatory on all new vehicles: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/31/nhtsa-rear-view-cameras/7114531/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/31/nhtsa-re...

kalleboo 10y ago

Just requiring autonomous emergency braking (which has been around for ages) would reduce accidents by 12%!

hkmurakami 10y ago

I did a brief search of DUI penalties around the world, and it really does seem like the penalty is light everywhere. After losing a friend to a DUI driver, I see DUI as being on the order of a manslaughter. I don't want the 12.5 years in jail that a first offense manslaughter charge carries, but the first offense of a 1 year license suspension seems far too light, and the repeat offense terms are egregiously light. http://www.drink-drive-lose.com/Article.aspx?a=87 http://www.drink-drive-lose.com/Article.aspx?a=87

andrei_says_ 10y ago
Is there research linking severity of punishment with frequency of behavior?
hueving 10y ago
Texting a driving is worse. I don't understand why so many people rail against people driving after a few drinks but will then play with their phone while driving. Would you be for making the punishment for texting and driving worse than a DUI? It should be if it's relative to the harm it causes.
- hkmurakami 10y ago
  Yes I would absolutely be in favor of this.
  - hueving 10y ago
    So if we're well into fining based on probability of causing loss of life due to distractions, can we also fine parents with young children (screaming, fighting, vomiting, etc all distract)? How about fining people on a recurring basis if they have a slower reaction time than some threshold? I'm only partially being sarcastic. I'm genuinely curious how these punishments for being impaired scale up. I would rather have someone drive by me after 4 drinks who is not tired rather than a mother running on 2 hours asleep with a screaming baby (sleep deprivation is also as bad as drunk driving). Yet the former would lose his/her license at a checkpoint for a year and face a $10k fine, which you say is too little. But the latter would be waved on through. It all seems very arbitrary and detached from the risk imposed and rather attached to the societal naughtiness of the activity.

BurningFrog 10y ago

No one doubts that SDCs will eventually be at least an order of magnitude safer than us meat bags. If that takes 5 years or 50 less clear. So switching over when they're 1% safer doesn't mean that's the end state. The margin will keep increasing for many years after that.