4 ms·

Interesting factoid... half of US traffic fatalities occur between the hours of 9pm and 3am on friday and saturday nights. Average drivers in average situations

by beat 8y ago

Interesting factoid... half of US traffic fatalities occur between the hours of 9pm and 3am on friday and saturday nights. Average drivers in average situations are, indeed, pretty safe. But drunk drivers? Angry drivers? Texting drivers? If autonomous cars can drive at the skill level of average drivers - and not get drunk or angry or distracted by forwarding cat videos - then they will significantly outperform humans. Additional evidence in the form of reason... autonomous drivers have better sensors than humans. Human drivers have limited vision, that only points in one direction at a time. Mirrors offer some slight augmentation, but. Ever backed out of a parking space in a crowded parking lot and gotten into an accident because a car you couldn't see before was suddenly right behind you? Common situation. Autonomous drivers won't have that problem. They can see out the back and to the sides, 360 degrees at all times. (I'll note that some of the first deployed autonomous tech was cars that can parallel-park themselves.) Additionally, autonomous systems have better reflexes. Remember the two second rule? That's to deal with the delay from your eyes to your brain to your hands and feet. Machines can physically respond to changes in situation faster than humans. Now, let's level up. Imagine a system where autonomous vehicles are transmitting short-range telemetry to nearby vehicles, letting them know their status, including velocity. They can relay back emergency status info - so the car that slams its brakes to avoid a pedestrian doesn't cause someone six cars back to rear-end the car in front of them. Merge-related accidents (related to parking-lot problems) can be reduced to nothingness with telemetry. Think about how Waze is doing this already with driving data for their mapping software. It'd work better with less human involvement. I can go on and on, but really, I'm gonna throw a bullshit card here. Fear of autonomous vehicles is magical thinking trumping reason. Humans do magical thinking all the time. We think safe things are scary, and we think scary things are safe, for symbolism rather than fact. That's why people in this discussion used the phrase "murderbot", but not "murderer".

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
>Interesting factoid... half of US traffic fatalities occur between the hours of 9pm and 3am on friday and saturday nights. Average drivers in average situations are, indeed, pretty safe. But drunk drivers? Angry drivers? Texting drivers? There is exactly zero proof that self-driving vehicles are better than drunk drivers. There is exactly zero proof that self-driving vehicles are better than angry drivers. There is exactly zero proof that self-driving vehicles are better than texting drivers. There is zero proof they will soon overtake any of those categories. >Additional evidence in the form of reason... autonomous drivers have better sensors than humans. Teslas have to ignore stationary objects because they can't accurately estimate the height of those objects. My 'sensors' know when a tire shred is on the ground and about 2 inches high and when a bicyclist is on the ground and about 5 feet high. >Additionally, autonomous systems have better reflexes. Remember the two second rule? That's to deal with the delay from your eyes to your brain to your hands and feet. Machines can physically respond to changes in situation faster than humans. Watch the video here: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44439523 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44439523 I have driven while texting, I still sometimes drive angry and I have (unfortunately) driven drunk in the past. I have never made the very simple mistake made in that video. Where is the quick mechanical reflex you are leading me to believe exists in self-driving vehicles? >Now, let's level up. Imagine a... No. Your imagination is running wild imagining something that doesn't and won't in the near future exist. Your imaginary car not only is covered in sensors, but can p2p communicate with the cars around it, has no lag in processing complex input, can behave itself among human drivers, etc. None of this actually exists, none of it is actually out there and we really don't have good reason to expect it any time soon. >I can go on and on, I believe you could, but it's just your fantasizing, it's not a realistic portrait of what is actually happening. >I'm gonna throw a bullshit card here. Going to? What about the several you've already sent my way lol. >Humans do magical thinking all the time. We think safe things are scary, and we think scary things are safe, for symbolism rather than fact. Exactly! That's why people in this discussion called humans "So. Fucking. Awful." at driving and then wrote three paragraphs imagining a utopian, non-existent self-driving system which magically solves all problems and is really quite safe. Before diagnosing magical thinking in others you might attempt detecting it in yourself.
- beat 8y ago
  You keep insisting there's zero evidence of the performance of autonomous cars relative to human drivers (you're talking about drunk/texting, but I'm distilling the generalization from it). What evidence do you have that there is zero evidence? After all, we have off-road lab results from many manufacturers. We have on-road results. Some early-stage autonomous tech is already widely available and in use today, such as collision detection with auto-braking to prevent rear-end collisions. There is TONS of data. Stop pretending it doesn't exist. Your video is an interesting example. That is not a fully autonomous vehicle, but rather an assisted one, one that expects human engagement. In the example case, it failed because of human error. Now, there's a good argument that semi-autonomous vehicles will lead to additional human error, but that's not saying what you're saying. If you live in an icy climate (I do), and have been driving for a long time (I have), then at some point, you would remember the transition to anti-lock braking systems. Before them, we had to learn to pump brakes in certain ways on icy roads, to prevent locking. Now, just push down the pedal, and a computer does it for you - one that senses brake lock before it happens. It made winter driving much safer. Your criticism of Tesla sensors is flawed. You're assuming that their sensors will not get better. That seems an unreasonable and unlikely conclusion. And you're ignoring my point about 360 degree sensor coverage. I'm an excellent driver, but I find myself in danger regularly because I can't see everything. Magical thinking, oh yeah.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
    >What evidence do you have that there is zero evidence? You're really contorting yourself here, just give me an apples to apples comparison of human driving safety to self-driving vehicle safety and I'll be happy. (Hint: none exists) >That is not a fully autonomous vehicle, but rather an assisted one, one that expects human engagement. In the example case, it failed because of human error. No no, no word games. That is a Tesla marketing/liability line. What you see in that video is the current state of self-driving. And a product marketed as self-driving which can't steer around a stopped vehicle in the lane isn't really self-driving at all. Besides if what you're talking about is Level 5 type self-driving systems, you have nothing supporting the idea that we get there soon or that current self-driving systems will get us there. I mean besides if drunk drivers could navigate around that car then you're basically admitting that drunk drivers are still better than the current state of self-driving technology. (something I agree with) >ABS ... I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not against technological progress which makes vehicles safer. I'm against the understanding that self-driving technology is making cars safer. >Your criticism of Tesla sensors is flawed. You're assuming that their sensors will not get better. That seems an unreasonable and unlikely conclusion. And you're ignoring my point about 360 degree sensor coverage. I'm an excellent driver, but I find myself in danger regularly because I can't see everything. And you're assuming that their sensors will leap and bound ahead magically. You're trying to make me argue that humans are better drivers than the perfect system that exists in your head. I'm saying the perfect system that exists in your head is irrelevant because it is not going to become reality.
ksk 8y ago
>If autonomous cars can drive at the skill level of average drivers - and not get drunk or angry or distracted by forwarding cat videos - then they will significantly outperform humans. As long as you use the word "if" you can say pretty much anything you want. >Additional evidence in the form of reason... autonomous drivers have better sensors than humans. Human drivers have limited vision, that only points in one direction at a time. That is not evidence. It is your own opinion. Nothing of the sort has been proven to work reliably. >Autonomous drivers won't have that problem. They can see out the back and to the sides, 360 degrees at all times. (I'll note that some of the first deployed autonomous tech was cars that can parallel-park themselves.) They can't "see". They can only sense what they have been programmed to sense. The envelope of what they can process is tiny. Sensors have flaws, humans programming those sensors have flaws. The human eye and visual cortex has been evolving for millions of years. >I can go on and on, but really, I'm gonna throw a bullshit card here. The biggest "bullshit" here is that you are claiming fantastical things that autonomous cars can do that have not been proven in the slightest. You implying that other people are stupid for being apprehensive about unproven tech is quite rich...
smogcutter 8y ago
Just a side note, magical thinking doesn't quite mean what you're using it for. It's not synonymous with poor reasoning. "A self driving car could kill me or others at any moment, and whether that happens is completely outside my control" is a reasonable fear. People may over-weight it compared to more familiar dangers that are in fact greater, but that's not magical thinking. Magical thinking is more about believing in a causal relationship between unrelated events. Astrology is an example, but also things like "if I don't shave my beard my hockey team will win" or "I thought something bad about my kid and then they got hurt, I'm a terrible parent".

by beat 8y ago

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago

>Interesting factoid... half of US traffic fatalities occur between the hours of 9pm and 3am on friday and saturday nights. Average drivers in average situations are, indeed, pretty safe. But drunk drivers? Angry drivers? Texting drivers? There is exactly zero proof that self-driving vehicles are better than drunk drivers. There is exactly zero proof that self-driving vehicles are better than angry drivers. There is exactly zero proof that self-driving vehicles are better than texting drivers. There is zero proof they will soon overtake any of those categories. >Additional evidence in the form of reason... autonomous drivers have better sensors than humans. Teslas have to ignore stationary objects because they can't accurately estimate the height of those objects. My 'sensors' know when a tire shred is on the ground and about 2 inches high and when a bicyclist is on the ground and about 5 feet high. >Additionally, autonomous systems have better reflexes. Remember the two second rule? That's to deal with the delay from your eyes to your brain to your hands and feet. Machines can physically respond to changes in situation faster than humans. Watch the video here: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44439523 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44439523 I have driven while texting, I still sometimes drive angry and I have (unfortunately) driven drunk in the past. I have never made the very simple mistake made in that video. Where is the quick mechanical reflex you are leading me to believe exists in self-driving vehicles? >Now, let's level up. Imagine a... No. Your imagination is running wild imagining something that doesn't and won't in the near future exist. Your imaginary car not only is covered in sensors, but can p2p communicate with the cars around it, has no lag in processing complex input, can behave itself among human drivers, etc. None of this actually exists, none of it is actually out there and we really don't have good reason to expect it any time soon. >I can go on and on, I believe you could, but it's just your fantasizing, it's not a realistic portrait of what is actually happening. >I'm gonna throw a bullshit card here. Going to? What about the several you've already sent my way lol. >Humans do magical thinking all the time. We think safe things are scary, and we think scary things are safe, for symbolism rather than fact. Exactly! That's why people in this discussion called humans "So. Fucking. Awful." at driving and then wrote three paragraphs imagining a utopian, non-existent self-driving system which magically solves all problems and is really quite safe. Before diagnosing magical thinking in others you might attempt detecting it in yourself.

beat 8y ago
You keep insisting there's zero evidence of the performance of autonomous cars relative to human drivers (you're talking about drunk/texting, but I'm distilling the generalization from it). What evidence do you have that there is zero evidence? After all, we have off-road lab results from many manufacturers. We have on-road results. Some early-stage autonomous tech is already widely available and in use today, such as collision detection with auto-braking to prevent rear-end collisions. There is TONS of data. Stop pretending it doesn't exist. Your video is an interesting example. That is not a fully autonomous vehicle, but rather an assisted one, one that expects human engagement. In the example case, it failed because of human error. Now, there's a good argument that semi-autonomous vehicles will lead to additional human error, but that's not saying what you're saying. If you live in an icy climate (I do), and have been driving for a long time (I have), then at some point, you would remember the transition to anti-lock braking systems. Before them, we had to learn to pump brakes in certain ways on icy roads, to prevent locking. Now, just push down the pedal, and a computer does it for you - one that senses brake lock before it happens. It made winter driving much safer. Your criticism of Tesla sensors is flawed. You're assuming that their sensors will not get better. That seems an unreasonable and unlikely conclusion. And you're ignoring my point about 360 degree sensor coverage. I'm an excellent driver, but I find myself in danger regularly because I can't see everything. Magical thinking, oh yeah.
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  >What evidence do you have that there is zero evidence? You're really contorting yourself here, just give me an apples to apples comparison of human driving safety to self-driving vehicle safety and I'll be happy. (Hint: none exists) >That is not a fully autonomous vehicle, but rather an assisted one, one that expects human engagement. In the example case, it failed because of human error. No no, no word games. That is a Tesla marketing/liability line. What you see in that video is the current state of self-driving. And a product marketed as self-driving which can't steer around a stopped vehicle in the lane isn't really self-driving at all. Besides if what you're talking about is Level 5 type self-driving systems, you have nothing supporting the idea that we get there soon or that current self-driving systems will get us there. I mean besides if drunk drivers could navigate around that car then you're basically admitting that drunk drivers are still better than the current state of self-driving technology. (something I agree with) >ABS ... I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not against technological progress which makes vehicles safer. I'm against the understanding that self-driving technology is making cars safer. >Your criticism of Tesla sensors is flawed. You're assuming that their sensors will not get better. That seems an unreasonable and unlikely conclusion. And you're ignoring my point about 360 degree sensor coverage. I'm an excellent driver, but I find myself in danger regularly because I can't see everything. And you're assuming that their sensors will leap and bound ahead magically. You're trying to make me argue that humans are better drivers than the perfect system that exists in your head. I'm saying the perfect system that exists in your head is irrelevant because it is not going to become reality.

ksk 8y ago

>If autonomous cars can drive at the skill level of average drivers - and not get drunk or angry or distracted by forwarding cat videos - then they will significantly outperform humans. As long as you use the word "if" you can say pretty much anything you want. >Additional evidence in the form of reason... autonomous drivers have better sensors than humans. Human drivers have limited vision, that only points in one direction at a time. That is not evidence. It is your own opinion. Nothing of the sort has been proven to work reliably. >Autonomous drivers won't have that problem. They can see out the back and to the sides, 360 degrees at all times. (I'll note that some of the first deployed autonomous tech was cars that can parallel-park themselves.) They can't "see". They can only sense what they have been programmed to sense. The envelope of what they can process is tiny. Sensors have flaws, humans programming those sensors have flaws. The human eye and visual cortex has been evolving for millions of years. >I can go on and on, but really, I'm gonna throw a bullshit card here. The biggest "bullshit" here is that you are claiming fantastical things that autonomous cars can do that have not been proven in the slightest. You implying that other people are stupid for being apprehensive about unproven tech is quite rich...

smogcutter 8y ago

Just a side note, magical thinking doesn't quite mean what you're using it for. It's not synonymous with poor reasoning. "A self driving car could kill me or others at any moment, and whether that happens is completely outside my control" is a reasonable fear. People may over-weight it compared to more familiar dangers that are in fact greater, but that's not magical thinking. Magical thinking is more about believing in a causal relationship between unrelated events. Astrology is an example, but also things like "if I don't shave my beard my hockey team will win" or "I thought something bad about my kid and then they got hurt, I'm a terrible parent".