4 ms·

I'm just going to point out that nearly every time someone gets their learners permit, or graduated from a learners permit to a full license, an insufficiently

I'm just going to point out that nearly every time someone gets their learners permit, or graduated from a learners permit to a full license, an insufficiently tested driver is allowed on the road in order to develop more skills and become a better driver. Often they kill people in the process of learning. Should we require years of private training for every human driver as well? They can't even share what they learn with each other effectively.

jonathanyc 9y ago
The difference is we have a lot of experience with the human brain, and not much at all with self-driving cars. All we have to go on are the statistics, which say that although humans are bad drivers, self-driving cars are even worse (or at best that we don’t have sufficient information). Again, why not just test them in private and hire people to be pedestrians?
- lhorie 9y ago
  > why not just test them in private and hire people to be pedestrians? And get these employees to do what exactly? You obviously can't tell them to put their lives at risk to test what happens if they walk onto a car's path, or if they ride a bike on a car's blind spot wearing dark clothes at night, or if they fall from a motorcycle in front of a car after hitting a raccoon. The dichotomy here is that private courses are inherently orderly and the real world is inherently chaotic.
  - jonathanyc 9y ago
    That is exactly what those employees would have to be paid and consent to do—just like test drivers. In fact, someone else linked a Waymo blogpost saying that they have employees do exactly those things (walking into cars’ paths, lying down on skateboards...) How is it not OK to have consenting people do these things but OK to have random people on the street participate in exactly the same tests?
    - lhorie 9y ago
      People willingly operate unsafe machinery in 3rd world country factories but personally I don't think it's OK when they get crippled due to some accident or malfunction. If all you're testing are scenarios that are known to be safe for the employee in question, then what exactly are you gaining from that testing?
      - jonathanyc 9y ago
        Again: > How is it not OK to have consenting people do these things but OK to have random people on the street participate in exactly the same tests? Are you seriously saying Waymo’s (for example) testing practices are worse than just testing unsafe software in public?
        lhorie 9y ago
        It's not a matter of whether they are better or worse, it's a matter of whether these tests are sufficiently realistic. Anyone with half a brain would hopefully quickly realize that you don't actually need a live person to lay down on a skateboard. Heck, you can simulate a much more risky jaywalking scenario with a mannequin on a dolly than with a living person. Waymo is deploying its fleets on public roads too, which suggests to me that they think that private course tests can only get you so far.
        Slartie 9y ago
        > Waymo is deploying its fleets on public roads too, which suggests to me that they think that private course tests can only get you so far. No, it just suggests that building and operating huge private courses that realistically emulate daily traffic situations in cities is much more expensive than just (ab)using the "real" public infrastructure paid for by tax dollars for your beta-testing needs, and that Waymo (just like Uber) takes full advantage of this chance to privatize gains and socialize losses.
DougN7 9y ago
“Often they kill people”??? That’s not even intellectually honest. This is the fliplant attitude the top poster is responding to.
- nightski 9y ago
  Our city (which is pretty small tbh, 150k) had 424 DUI arrests just this past weekend (Fri-Sun) due to St. Patrick's day. This is despite availability of uber, lyft, taxis, public transit, and bar services which will give you a ride home and allow you to park your car until morning. Ignoring these facts is just as intellectually dishonest.
  - jonathanyc 9y ago
    Let’s look at the actual numbers. Here is a link to one such comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16620968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16620968
    - nightski 9y ago
      Are you really scaling off a single data point? I feel like you'd also have to compare the types of driving. What is the death per 100 million miles on a city street? If you exclude highway miles I'd imagine it's much worse.
      - jonathanyc 9y ago
        It is the only data we have. Ironically, one reason for the paucity of such data is that these companies have been so reluctant to make public their records—the reason this accident occurred in Arizona and not California is because Arizona has relaxed reporting requirements. And the commenter notes that extrapolating might not be wise. Are you really asserting your statements without any fact whatsoever?
        nightski 9y ago
        I did not assert anything other than that extrapolating a single data point doesn't really tell you anything and is pretty irrelevant.
majewsky 9y ago
A learning driver on their first day has at least 16 years of experience with traffic (and life in general), and thus a fine model of which actions can map to injury and loss of life.
- tylersmith 9y ago
  That's not even remotely true. When I started learning to drive I had 0 experience with traffic. When I was fully licensed I had less than 2 years experience.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    So you had literally never seen a car or crossed a road before?
- stormbrew 9y ago
  I'm sure there are some people who are attentive enough about traffic before they start studying for a learner's permit (at 14 most places, I believe, not 16) to be described that way, but many are not. Especially if you live and go to school in a suburban area your experience with traffic is probably largely a) crossing not very busy streets, b) riding a bike on, again, not very busy streets where traffic laws are honestly barely obeyed anyways, and c) getting on a bus or being driven everywhere, at which point maybe you pay attention or maybe you don't. There's definitely going to be some osmosis but I think you're pretty vastly overstating it (and including several years in which your ability to even comprehend what traffic is is going to be severely limited).

jonathanyc 9y ago

The difference is we have a lot of experience with the human brain, and not much at all with self-driving cars. All we have to go on are the statistics, which say that although humans are bad drivers, self-driving cars are even worse (or at best that we don’t have sufficient information). Again, why not just test them in private and hire people to be pedestrians?

lhorie 9y ago
> why not just test them in private and hire people to be pedestrians? And get these employees to do what exactly? You obviously can't tell them to put their lives at risk to test what happens if they walk onto a car's path, or if they ride a bike on a car's blind spot wearing dark clothes at night, or if they fall from a motorcycle in front of a car after hitting a raccoon. The dichotomy here is that private courses are inherently orderly and the real world is inherently chaotic.
- jonathanyc 9y ago
  That is exactly what those employees would have to be paid and consent to do—just like test drivers. In fact, someone else linked a Waymo blogpost saying that they have employees do exactly those things (walking into cars’ paths, lying down on skateboards...) How is it not OK to have consenting people do these things but OK to have random people on the street participate in exactly the same tests?
  - lhorie 9y ago
    People willingly operate unsafe machinery in 3rd world country factories but personally I don't think it's OK when they get crippled due to some accident or malfunction. If all you're testing are scenarios that are known to be safe for the employee in question, then what exactly are you gaining from that testing?
    - jonathanyc 9y ago
      Again: > How is it not OK to have consenting people do these things but OK to have random people on the street participate in exactly the same tests? Are you seriously saying Waymo’s (for example) testing practices are worse than just testing unsafe software in public?
      - lhorie 9y ago
        It's not a matter of whether they are better or worse, it's a matter of whether these tests are sufficiently realistic. Anyone with half a brain would hopefully quickly realize that you don't actually need a live person to lay down on a skateboard. Heck, you can simulate a much more risky jaywalking scenario with a mannequin on a dolly than with a living person. Waymo is deploying its fleets on public roads too, which suggests to me that they think that private course tests can only get you so far.
        Slartie 9y ago
        > Waymo is deploying its fleets on public roads too, which suggests to me that they think that private course tests can only get you so far. No, it just suggests that building and operating huge private courses that realistically emulate daily traffic situations in cities is much more expensive than just (ab)using the "real" public infrastructure paid for by tax dollars for your beta-testing needs, and that Waymo (just like Uber) takes full advantage of this chance to privatize gains and socialize losses.

DougN7 9y ago

“Often they kill people”??? That’s not even intellectually honest. This is the fliplant attitude the top poster is responding to.

nightski 9y ago
Our city (which is pretty small tbh, 150k) had 424 DUI arrests just this past weekend (Fri-Sun) due to St. Patrick's day. This is despite availability of uber, lyft, taxis, public transit, and bar services which will give you a ride home and allow you to park your car until morning. Ignoring these facts is just as intellectually dishonest.
- jonathanyc 9y ago
  Let’s look at the actual numbers. Here is a link to one such comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16620968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16620968
  - nightski 9y ago
    Are you really scaling off a single data point? I feel like you'd also have to compare the types of driving. What is the death per 100 million miles on a city street? If you exclude highway miles I'd imagine it's much worse.
    - jonathanyc 9y ago
      It is the only data we have. Ironically, one reason for the paucity of such data is that these companies have been so reluctant to make public their records—the reason this accident occurred in Arizona and not California is because Arizona has relaxed reporting requirements. And the commenter notes that extrapolating might not be wise. Are you really asserting your statements without any fact whatsoever?
      - nightski 9y ago
        I did not assert anything other than that extrapolating a single data point doesn't really tell you anything and is pretty irrelevant.

majewsky 9y ago

A learning driver on their first day has at least 16 years of experience with traffic (and life in general), and thus a fine model of which actions can map to injury and loss of life.

tylersmith 9y ago
That's not even remotely true. When I started learning to drive I had 0 experience with traffic. When I was fully licensed I had less than 2 years experience.
- majewsky 9y ago
  So you had literally never seen a car or crossed a road before?
stormbrew 9y ago
I'm sure there are some people who are attentive enough about traffic before they start studying for a learner's permit (at 14 most places, I believe, not 16) to be described that way, but many are not. Especially if you live and go to school in a suburban area your experience with traffic is probably largely a) crossing not very busy streets, b) riding a bike on, again, not very busy streets where traffic laws are honestly barely obeyed anyways, and c) getting on a bus or being driven everywhere, at which point maybe you pay attention or maybe you don't. There's definitely going to be some osmosis but I think you're pretty vastly overstating it (and including several years in which your ability to even comprehend what traffic is is going to be severely limited).