9 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 situation

>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.

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.