6 ms·

So, G.M. has a decades long history of often doing the wrong thing when it comes to safety in the name of profits. Ask yourself, would you trust these folks to

So, G.M. has a decades long history of often doing the wrong thing when it comes to safety in the name of profits. Ask yourself, would you trust these folks to auto-drive you anywhere? http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/10/news/companies/gm-recall-ignition-switch-death-toll/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/10/news/companies/gm-recall-ign... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_ignition_switch_recalls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_ignition_switch...

apendleton 9y ago
Honestly, probably, because the bar is so very low. Humans are terrible at driving safely. We just accept it because until now we've had no alternative. I don't think a newcomer would have to execute perfectly, or even particularly well, to do better than the status quo.
- Strilanc 9y ago
  The bar is actually pretty high. Making a system that fails less than once per hundred thousand kilometers is not trivial.
- Frondo 9y ago
  Paraphrasing someone else's excellent take: Grandparent, to child, riding in an automated vehicle, "Can you believe, once upon a time people steered these?" "What? How did that work? Was that safe?" "Oh, no, 30,000 people died every year!"
Shivetya 9y ago
Well at least they don't have the gall to call it Autopilot which has connotations sufficient enough to lull a lot of people into believing a product already delivers more than it can and likely ever will. the issue we face now is, who is leading and or taking charge of this space, how are they actually doing it, and which solution is the best. with more players we might get lucky to see Level5 within a decade or two. AV is perceived by many in the same category as any safety equipment, be that as simple as a seat belt, or an airbag, or complex like ABS and traction control. As such it has to meet a much higher standard. GM has recently shown they can move in any direction they want and very quickly. The managed to launch a relatively affordable 200 mile range EV in short order with no availability issues other than an on purpose staggered release. why would any of the existing automakers cede any innovative technologies and why would we not celebrate all of them trying
- undersuit 9y ago
  I don't know where those connotations came from. Any basic understanding of autopilot functions in existing vehicles, like airplanes, makes it immediately obvious how limited in function autopilot is.
  - notfed 9y ago
    Most people don't have a basic understanding of how autopilot works in airplanes.
eh78ssxv2f 9y ago
1 mistake in 109 years does not seem too bad. Is there data to compare with other auto manufacturers?
- ams6110 9y ago
  Well there was the Corvair (unsafe at any speed) and the Vega (exploded if hit from behind) and I'm sure others. Where did your 1 in 109 stat come from? Edit: I take back the Vega. While that was an awful car, I was actually thinking of the Ford Pinto.
  - com2kid 9y ago
    > Edit: I take back the Vega. While that was an awful car, I was actually thinking of the Ford Pinto. Turns out a lot of cars from that era had the same problem, and in general subcompact cars of the time were rather dangerous. The famous cost benefit analysis memo was also misquoted, and taken out of context. Economy sub-compact cars always have, and always will, meet exactly the minimum safety requirements put forth by the government. That is the entire point of an economy car, to make the cheapest car legally possible. Want safety without regard for price? Drive a Volvo.

apendleton 9y ago

Honestly, probably, because the bar is so very low. Humans are terrible at driving safely. We just accept it because until now we've had no alternative. I don't think a newcomer would have to execute perfectly, or even particularly well, to do better than the status quo.

Strilanc 9y ago
The bar is actually pretty high. Making a system that fails less than once per hundred thousand kilometers is not trivial.
Frondo 9y ago
Paraphrasing someone else's excellent take: Grandparent, to child, riding in an automated vehicle, "Can you believe, once upon a time people steered these?" "What? How did that work? Was that safe?" "Oh, no, 30,000 people died every year!"

Shivetya 9y ago

Well at least they don't have the gall to call it Autopilot which has connotations sufficient enough to lull a lot of people into believing a product already delivers more than it can and likely ever will. the issue we face now is, who is leading and or taking charge of this space, how are they actually doing it, and which solution is the best. with more players we might get lucky to see Level5 within a decade or two. AV is perceived by many in the same category as any safety equipment, be that as simple as a seat belt, or an airbag, or complex like ABS and traction control. As such it has to meet a much higher standard. GM has recently shown they can move in any direction they want and very quickly. The managed to launch a relatively affordable 200 mile range EV in short order with no availability issues other than an on purpose staggered release. why would any of the existing automakers cede any innovative technologies and why would we not celebrate all of them trying

undersuit 9y ago
I don't know where those connotations came from. Any basic understanding of autopilot functions in existing vehicles, like airplanes, makes it immediately obvious how limited in function autopilot is.
- notfed 9y ago
  Most people don't have a basic understanding of how autopilot works in airplanes.

eh78ssxv2f 9y ago

1 mistake in 109 years does not seem too bad. Is there data to compare with other auto manufacturers?

ams6110 9y ago
Well there was the Corvair (unsafe at any speed) and the Vega (exploded if hit from behind) and I'm sure others. Where did your 1 in 109 stat come from? Edit: I take back the Vega. While that was an awful car, I was actually thinking of the Ford Pinto.
- com2kid 9y ago
  > Edit: I take back the Vega. While that was an awful car, I was actually thinking of the Ford Pinto. Turns out a lot of cars from that era had the same problem, and in general subcompact cars of the time were rather dangerous. The famous cost benefit analysis memo was also misquoted, and taken out of context. Economy sub-compact cars always have, and always will, meet exactly the minimum safety requirements put forth by the government. That is the entire point of an economy car, to make the cheapest car legally possible. Want safety without regard for price? Drive a Volvo.