4 ms·
Go to [0] and [1] and count how many times they use the word "safe." We're not hoping autonomous vehicles are safer, we're being sold on them as the safer alter
by chrsstrm 9y ago
Go to [0] and [1] and count how many times they use the word "safe." We're not hoping autonomous vehicles are safer, we're being sold on them as the safer alternative. So yes, this type of close call situation is exactly where these vehicles are supposed to be superior.
[0] https://waymo.com/ https://waymo.com/
[1] https://www.uber.com/info/atg/ https://www.uber.com/info/atg/
- maxerickson 9y agoWhy should I take their marketing at face value? Of course they are selling them as safe. I still think the funding to work on them is chasing big piles of money.
- jachee 9y agoHuman-driven car fatalities per day: 120+ Automated-car fatalities total: 1 Seems safer, so far. Also, nothing's going to make walking out in front of a ton of steel going 30+mph 100% safe.
- dictum 9y agoThat's a very misleading comparison, even as an informal, rough comparison for the sake of argument. Such a comparison would have to take into account the amount of human-driven cars and automated cars - not just taking a picture of a single day, but the variance over time (e.g. if today there are a thousand automated cars in operation, and yesterday there were 50, that can distort the average stats); automated cars aren't driving in certain areas/times/weather conditions whereas human-driven cars are, etc. Automated cars may be safer, but, open snark – I hope it's not calculating its sensor data in this way — close snark.
- thousandautumns 9y agoThis isn't the first automated car fatality though right? Hasn't Tesla had some?