3 ms·

The trouble is, I see a lot of drivers that aren't paying attention to the road, who are dazing off, who are looking at their phones/clouds whatever. The majori

The trouble is, I see a lot of drivers that aren't paying attention to the road, who are dazing off, who are looking at their phones/clouds whatever. The majority of them aren't driving Teslas. At least with a Tesla I know there's a backup system (the 'autopilot'). I'm not saying the Autopilot is 100% faultless/reliable. I am sure however that humans have a much higher chance of handling a situation badly than the autopilot, simply because they're human and humans do stupid shit.

burlesona 8y ago
I don’t agree. The machines and humans make different kinds of stupid mistakes.
blackrock 8y ago
Let's take a scenario. This seems to happen all the time on the freeway. You're cruising down the freeway at 75 MPH. All of a sudden, traffic comes to a screeching halt. There are 3 cars in this scenario. The first car is the one that slams on his brakes, and comes to a stop. The second car, cannot stop in time, and he swerves out of the way, and safely gets into the adjacent lane. Close call, but he drives away safely. The third car, is the Tesla, with the driver on Autopilot, and browsing Facebook on his iPhone. So, he is inattentive. The whole sequence plays out in less than 5 seconds. In this scenario, the third car, the Tesla, will not recognize the situation that the second car swerved out of the way. So the Tesla will collide into the first car at high speeds. The velocity of the impact kills all occupants inside the first car, and the third car, the Tesla. So, if both cars are full of occupants, then maybe up to 10 people are now dead. The problem is that the Tesla does not have situational awareness. It cannot read the current road condition. It cannot see through the tinted windows of the 2nd car, to see that the first car has slammed on his brakes. So, the accident severity of the Tesla, is much greater, than compared to a scenario where a human was driving the third car. In this scenario, I think the human might be able to see the situation, and attempt to avoid it. Or to at least mitigate the severity of it. Like, he would slam on his brakes, or steer out of the way, or something. He might still collide with the first car, but probably at a much lower velocity, that all occupants of both cars can still survive. It just seems that the severity of the accident with current robotic cars, just seems greater, than compared to when a human is the driver.
- chc 8y ago
  Now let's add a fourth car, a Toyota without TACC, whose driver is also browsing Facebook on his phone. This driver also does not recognize the situation and will collide into the first car at a high speed. Is this worse than the third car? No, probably not. In short, the assumption that a human driver without Autopilot is paying attention and will swerve out of the way is not a valid one. People drive distracted in traditional cars all the time. BTW, from what I have heard, Teslas might actually be better at seeing through other cars than human drivers are, since radar can bounce in ways visible light can't.
  - jonhendry18 8y ago
    A Toyota driver probably wouldn't put that much faith in a mere Toyota. Tesla drivers who are high on Elon's farts put that much faith in their cars. "BTW, from what I have heard, Teslas might actually be better at seeing through other cars than human drivers are, since radar can bounce in ways visible light can't." Or maybe not, since a Tesla couldn't even see a stopped fire truck.
    - chc 8y ago
      People who drive normal cars are on their phones while driving all the time. There's no "probably" about it — I know lots of people who have had their cars hit by inattentive drivers. I myself got rear-ended by a guy who was honest enough to straight-up admit that he didn't see me stop because he was messaging on his phone. Also, I'm not sure what connection you see between recognizing a stationary fire truck and seeing two cars ahead with radar. They seem like pretty different tasks.
- JoshCole 8y ago
  A quick google search puts the average number of deaths due to car crashes at 3,287 per day [1]. Another one gives me a list of four deaths attributed to autonomous vehicles [2]. Not four per day. Just four. Ever. Memory leads me to recall that statistical reports indicating that vehicles with assistive features like autopilot have a better than traditional safety record [3]. I especially disagree with your thought experiment, because I've watched YouTube videos of situations in which Tesla's autopilot avoided accidents both through stopping and through swerving out of the way [4]. I don't agree with your claim that robotic cars tend to have more severe accidents than traditional cars. [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=average+number+of+deaths+via+car+accident+per+day&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab https://www.google.com/search?q=average+number+of+deaths+via... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autonomous_car_fatalities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autonomous_car_fatalit... [3]: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/stay-within-the-lines-lane-departure-warning-blind-spot-detection-help-drivers-avoid-trouble http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/stay-within-the-li... [4]: https://youtu.be/FrJ2uPRRtz0?t=46 https://youtu.be/FrJ2uPRRtz0?t=46 The short seller thesis for TESLA is that since the company is one which is valued based on its story, not its underlying fundamentals, it follows that its price will be volatile in response to negative press (accidents, missed projections, etc). There is a clear path from this observation to making money via negative press. If you're interested in hearing more about how the world is a lot better than you thought it was, but the truth of our situation is distorted by competing forces, here are some cool TED talks [5][6]. [5]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCm9Ng0bbEQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCm9Ng0bbEQ [6]: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_...

burlesona 8y ago

I don’t agree. The machines and humans make different kinds of stupid mistakes.

blackrock 8y ago

Let's take a scenario. This seems to happen all the time on the freeway. You're cruising down the freeway at 75 MPH. All of a sudden, traffic comes to a screeching halt. There are 3 cars in this scenario. The first car is the one that slams on his brakes, and comes to a stop. The second car, cannot stop in time, and he swerves out of the way, and safely gets into the adjacent lane. Close call, but he drives away safely. The third car, is the Tesla, with the driver on Autopilot, and browsing Facebook on his iPhone. So, he is inattentive. The whole sequence plays out in less than 5 seconds. In this scenario, the third car, the Tesla, will not recognize the situation that the second car swerved out of the way. So the Tesla will collide into the first car at high speeds. The velocity of the impact kills all occupants inside the first car, and the third car, the Tesla. So, if both cars are full of occupants, then maybe up to 10 people are now dead. The problem is that the Tesla does not have situational awareness. It cannot read the current road condition. It cannot see through the tinted windows of the 2nd car, to see that the first car has slammed on his brakes. So, the accident severity of the Tesla, is much greater, than compared to a scenario where a human was driving the third car. In this scenario, I think the human might be able to see the situation, and attempt to avoid it. Or to at least mitigate the severity of it. Like, he would slam on his brakes, or steer out of the way, or something. He might still collide with the first car, but probably at a much lower velocity, that all occupants of both cars can still survive. It just seems that the severity of the accident with current robotic cars, just seems greater, than compared to when a human is the driver.

chc 8y ago
Now let's add a fourth car, a Toyota without TACC, whose driver is also browsing Facebook on his phone. This driver also does not recognize the situation and will collide into the first car at a high speed. Is this worse than the third car? No, probably not. In short, the assumption that a human driver without Autopilot is paying attention and will swerve out of the way is not a valid one. People drive distracted in traditional cars all the time. BTW, from what I have heard, Teslas might actually be better at seeing through other cars than human drivers are, since radar can bounce in ways visible light can't.
- jonhendry18 8y ago
  A Toyota driver probably wouldn't put that much faith in a mere Toyota. Tesla drivers who are high on Elon's farts put that much faith in their cars. "BTW, from what I have heard, Teslas might actually be better at seeing through other cars than human drivers are, since radar can bounce in ways visible light can't." Or maybe not, since a Tesla couldn't even see a stopped fire truck.
  - chc 8y ago
    People who drive normal cars are on their phones while driving all the time. There's no "probably" about it — I know lots of people who have had their cars hit by inattentive drivers. I myself got rear-ended by a guy who was honest enough to straight-up admit that he didn't see me stop because he was messaging on his phone. Also, I'm not sure what connection you see between recognizing a stationary fire truck and seeing two cars ahead with radar. They seem like pretty different tasks.
JoshCole 8y ago
A quick google search puts the average number of deaths due to car crashes at 3,287 per day [1]. Another one gives me a list of four deaths attributed to autonomous vehicles [2]. Not four per day. Just four. Ever. Memory leads me to recall that statistical reports indicating that vehicles with assistive features like autopilot have a better than traditional safety record [3]. I especially disagree with your thought experiment, because I've watched YouTube videos of situations in which Tesla's autopilot avoided accidents both through stopping and through swerving out of the way [4]. I don't agree with your claim that robotic cars tend to have more severe accidents than traditional cars. [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=average+number+of+deaths+via+car+accident+per+day&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab https://www.google.com/search?q=average+number+of+deaths+via... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autonomous_car_fatalities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autonomous_car_fatalit... [3]: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/stay-within-the-lines-lane-departure-warning-blind-spot-detection-help-drivers-avoid-trouble http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/stay-within-the-li... [4]: https://youtu.be/FrJ2uPRRtz0?t=46 https://youtu.be/FrJ2uPRRtz0?t=46 The short seller thesis for TESLA is that since the company is one which is valued based on its story, not its underlying fundamentals, it follows that its price will be volatile in response to negative press (accidents, missed projections, etc). There is a clear path from this observation to making money via negative press. If you're interested in hearing more about how the world is a lot better than you thought it was, but the truth of our situation is distorted by competing forces, here are some cool TED talks [5][6]. [5]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCm9Ng0bbEQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCm9Ng0bbEQ [6]: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_...