3 ms·

> It does not seem this would be acceptable by the public even though 30,000 annual human car fatalities could be avoided. The flawed assumption behind this th

> It does not seem this would be acceptable by the public even though 30,000 annual human car fatalities could be avoided. The flawed assumption behind this thinking is that all accidents have "accidental" factors. Alcohol and drugs and the poor decisions of young men are _huge_ components of that statistic. You also have to consider that motorcycles make up a not insignificant portion (12%) of those numbers. It also completely ignores the pedestrian component (16%) which is due to a huge number of factors, of which, driver attentiveness is only one. So many pedestrians die, at night, on the sides class B highways that it's silly. EDIT: To add, Texas has more fatalities on the roadway than California. Not per capita, _total_. This is clearly a multi-component problem.

simion314 9y ago
And you also have older cars with less safety features, not sure how is in US but in other countries you can stil see old cars that are missing airbags. So in fatalities statistics the fair thing is to compare Tesla with similar cars.
- cm2187 9y ago
  That’s a good point. Not just airbags. It starts to be common to have cars that apply the brakes automatically when they anticipate a collision. I think some research has been done on cars being designed to do less damage to a pedestrian in a collision, I don’t know if it has lead to design changes. Self driving cars may end up being only marginally safer than other new cars. But safety is not in my opinion the main rationale for self driving cars. Convenience and maximisation of traffic are.
  - rypskar 9y ago
    >>Convenience and maximisation of traffic are I think the convenience will mean more traffic since many who now use public transport will use their self driving car instead. So in total autopilots could be worse for the environment and require even more roads
    - cm2187 9y ago
      I agree with the traffic increasing, though as we are moving toward electric cars, not sure this is an environment problem. At least not an environment problem in big cities.
      - majewsky 9y ago
        Electric cars still impose a huge environmental cost since they need to be manufactured in the first place. And the batteries need rare earths which are, well, rare. While there is ongoing research into novel types of batteries made from more common materials, I wouldn't be surprised if the next war is about lithium instead of oil.
        cm2187 9y ago
        Agree, I am not convinced it is a net benefit for the overall environment. Plus they will consume more energy because of inefficiencies in transport and storage. But there is still an immense environmental benefit: they will pollute in places (industrial areas, mines) that are not places where people live (big cities). So the population will benefit a lot from moving where the pollution takes place. And it's not just air. Noise pollution, dirty buildings, etc.
        majewsky 9y ago
        > Plus they will consume more energy because of inefficiencies in transport and storage. Is that so? The larger engines in fossil power plants are more efficient than a fleet of small ICEs, but I don't know how this added efficiency compares against those inefficiencies along the way that you mentioned (and of course, a complete picture also needs to take into account the energy cost of distributing gas to cars).
  - kalleboo 9y ago
    > I think some research has been done on cars being designed to do less damage to a pedestrian in a collision European safety tests rank pedestrian protection in addition to passenger protection https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-explained/pedestrian-protection/ https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-expla... Outfitted Volvos will actually lift the hood in an impact to protect pedestrians https://support.volvocars.com/uk/cars/Pages/owners-manual.aspx?mc=v542&my=2017&sw=16w46&article=cd3b6597dd1f3be0c0a8015160cdfbb4 https://support.volvocars.com/uk/cars/Pages/owners-manual.as...
  - simion314 9y ago
    If we do not push for safety then the manufacturers would invent some bad statistics and cheap out on sensors and engineering after they pass the bad statistics percentage. The traffic issue it won't be actually solved with this kind of self driving cars, you would need new infrastructure, like modern metros/trains. The dream of fast moving self driving cars, like a sword, I don't think is possible without a huge infrastructure change and I think the sword of cars would need a central point of control.
    - cm2187 9y ago
      You will increase traffic without material change to infrastructures if you have no car parked in the street (particularly in Europe where streets are typically narrow) and you have better traffic flow management (coordinating self driving cars), variable speed limits, etc.
      - simion314 9y ago
        What is the minimum time you guess it would take to have a city with only self driven cars that could just drive by following lines and other specific signals? I do not think this will happen in an existing city for at least 20 years. I can imagine scenarios where a glitch or something else could cause tons of traffic issues in a city with only self driving cars. I am not against self driving cars, I don't like the fact that this startups arrived and push alpha quality stuff on the public roads, it will create a bad image for the entire field.
        cm2187 9y ago
        If all newly produced cars are self-driving cars in 10 years, I think it is reasonable to ban non self-driving cars 10 years after that. So 20 years sounds about right. It's not that long for such a fundamental change. And yes it will create its own problems. Like if these cars get hacked, they will cause serious damages.
        base698 9y ago

simion314 9y ago

And you also have older cars with less safety features, not sure how is in US but in other countries you can stil see old cars that are missing airbags. So in fatalities statistics the fair thing is to compare Tesla with similar cars.

cm2187 9y ago
That’s a good point. Not just airbags. It starts to be common to have cars that apply the brakes automatically when they anticipate a collision. I think some research has been done on cars being designed to do less damage to a pedestrian in a collision, I don’t know if it has lead to design changes. Self driving cars may end up being only marginally safer than other new cars. But safety is not in my opinion the main rationale for self driving cars. Convenience and maximisation of traffic are.
- rypskar 9y ago
  >>Convenience and maximisation of traffic are I think the convenience will mean more traffic since many who now use public transport will use their self driving car instead. So in total autopilots could be worse for the environment and require even more roads
  - cm2187 9y ago
    I agree with the traffic increasing, though as we are moving toward electric cars, not sure this is an environment problem. At least not an environment problem in big cities.
    - majewsky 9y ago
      Electric cars still impose a huge environmental cost since they need to be manufactured in the first place. And the batteries need rare earths which are, well, rare. While there is ongoing research into novel types of batteries made from more common materials, I wouldn't be surprised if the next war is about lithium instead of oil.
      - cm2187 9y ago
        Agree, I am not convinced it is a net benefit for the overall environment. Plus they will consume more energy because of inefficiencies in transport and storage. But there is still an immense environmental benefit: they will pollute in places (industrial areas, mines) that are not places where people live (big cities). So the population will benefit a lot from moving where the pollution takes place. And it's not just air. Noise pollution, dirty buildings, etc.
        majewsky 9y ago
        > Plus they will consume more energy because of inefficiencies in transport and storage. Is that so? The larger engines in fossil power plants are more efficient than a fleet of small ICEs, but I don't know how this added efficiency compares against those inefficiencies along the way that you mentioned (and of course, a complete picture also needs to take into account the energy cost of distributing gas to cars).
- kalleboo 9y ago
  > I think some research has been done on cars being designed to do less damage to a pedestrian in a collision European safety tests rank pedestrian protection in addition to passenger protection https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-explained/pedestrian-protection/ https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-expla... Outfitted Volvos will actually lift the hood in an impact to protect pedestrians https://support.volvocars.com/uk/cars/Pages/owners-manual.aspx?mc=v542&my=2017&sw=16w46&article=cd3b6597dd1f3be0c0a8015160cdfbb4 https://support.volvocars.com/uk/cars/Pages/owners-manual.as...
- simion314 9y ago
  If we do not push for safety then the manufacturers would invent some bad statistics and cheap out on sensors and engineering after they pass the bad statistics percentage. The traffic issue it won't be actually solved with this kind of self driving cars, you would need new infrastructure, like modern metros/trains. The dream of fast moving self driving cars, like a sword, I don't think is possible without a huge infrastructure change and I think the sword of cars would need a central point of control.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    You will increase traffic without material change to infrastructures if you have no car parked in the street (particularly in Europe where streets are typically narrow) and you have better traffic flow management (coordinating self driving cars), variable speed limits, etc.
    - simion314 9y ago
      What is the minimum time you guess it would take to have a city with only self driven cars that could just drive by following lines and other specific signals? I do not think this will happen in an existing city for at least 20 years. I can imagine scenarios where a glitch or something else could cause tons of traffic issues in a city with only self driving cars. I am not against self driving cars, I don't like the fact that this startups arrived and push alpha quality stuff on the public roads, it will create a bad image for the entire field.
      - cm2187 9y ago
        If all newly produced cars are self-driving cars in 10 years, I think it is reasonable to ban non self-driving cars 10 years after that. So 20 years sounds about right. It's not that long for such a fundamental change. And yes it will create its own problems. Like if these cars get hacked, they will cause serious damages.
        base698 9y ago