5 ms·

> So put them on the road. Let's give it a try. Maybe it works. Maybe it doesn't and people die and they sue. That's been part of driving since day one. Roll th

by rifung 8y ago

> So put them on the road. Let's give it a try. Maybe it works. Maybe it doesn't and people die and they sue. That's been part of driving since day one. Roll the dice. I'm sick of the endless debates. Well I'd certainly hope that there is a high level of confidence that they don't kill people BEFORE they're put on the road with other people.

the8472 8y ago
All we need is that they don't kill more people than average human drivers do per passenger-mile. Assuming ride-sharing we could even let them be a little more deadly than human drivers and still save lives.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  >> Assuming ride-sharing Don't. Cost isn't stopping people today from ridesharing. Carpooling won't become cool just because there is no driver, in fact I could see it becoming less cool as you will be much more alone with strangers. Many people today would be uncomfortable on a bus at night without a third party present (ie the driver, or at least many other strangers). Think about all the extra traffic from autodriver cars doing jobs that today are too expensive. And the double-commute possibility. Your car takes you to work, drives itself home to park/recharge, then drives back to pick you up at the end of the day. Any 2-way trip could become 4-way, doubling the per-trip traffic. Or, rather than pay for parking while you shop downtown, you ask your car to drive around in circles until you are ready to go home.
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    Carpooling has already become much more practical with Lyft Line, etc. No driver would mean even cheaper rides. Also, there's no reason your car couldn't park itself at work...or rent itself out (via Lyft/Uber) while you're at work. Assuming we get to that level of tech.
- notahacker 8y ago
  If cars which require no effort whatsoever to operate and cost significantly less than taxis are on the market, it's a safe bet that being slightly less dangerous per passenger mile will kill far more people than are currently killed on the roads due to more, longer car journeys. That's before we even get into the fact a car which is slightly less likely to cause a fatal accident than the average human driver on an accidents per mile basis is a lot more likely to cause a fatal accident than the average sober, careful and experienced human driver, the complications of estimating fatality rates from small test drive samples and the potential for new bugs to cause massive accident spikes.
  - the8472 8y ago
    Of course if people make more journeys, i.e. become more mobile, you could argue that the increased number of deaths should be balanced against life-hours of drivers freed up while also improving quality of life of passengers at the same time, i.e. it might still be QALY-neutral or even positive. > than the average sober, careful and experienced human driver But ultimately we do accept the fatality rates caused by all drivers and not just the good ones as a cost of having individual transportation. If we didn't only teetotalers would be allowed to operate cars to remove one risk factor. And we also accept the risk of inexperienced drivers because we have to teach them eventually, the same reasoning can be applied to autonomous cars (just substitute teaching with data gathering) The total distance driven also does not just depend on technology alone but on urban planning. AVs may change that dramatically over time.
    - notahacker 8y ago
      True, there are QALY arguments for even unreliable SDVs (and also for other things like abolishing speed limits or allowing people to continue to operate older vehicles currently deemed unroadworthy if they can't afford better), but they're dependent on how you adjust for quality and at best orthogonal to standard safety arguments. > But ultimately we do accept the fatility rates caused by all drivers and not just the good ones as a cost of having individual transportation. If we didn't only teetotalers would be allowed to operate cars to remove one risk factor. And we also accept the risk of inexperienced drivers because we have to teach them eventually, the same reasoning can be applied to autonomous cars (just substitute teaching with data gathering) We don't accept the fatality rates caused by all drivers; we confiscate the licenses of or jail bad drivers on a regular basis, and we certainly don't permit drivers being taught to operate commercially. Driver accountability for accidents is part of the social contract that permits individual transportation despite its cost; an corollary of that is that the accident rate is higher than we believe it should be, and that some degree of negligence is involved in the current level of accidents which it would seem unreasonable to exonerate corporations from if they were to replicate them using software. And on a purely practical basis, if you estimate SDV safety based on narrowly beating the mean accident rate across all drivers in tests, and then early commercial adoption tends to be replacing experienced commercial drivers who drive the most miles with the fewest incidents first, you're certainly going to push that accident rate up in the short run even without additional miles driven.
- rohit2412 8y ago
  No, that's a wrong benchmark. We shouldn't compare driverless cars with the average human driver. We should compare them with the average human driver assisted by the best technology (which is say waymo's driverless software running passively to prevent accidents).
  - zaroth 8y ago
    You’re incorrectly assuming that a solution to the problem of self-driving a car is a superset of the problem of passive accident avoidance. If the software is in active control pretty much everything that goes into that is different from software that is deciding if and when to emergency brake. To put it another way, a self-driving system will become safer than human drivers, not because it knows how/when to emergency brake really well, but because it won’t have to emergency brake as frequently as a human does.
    - legolas2412 8y ago
      Sure, I understand that a driverless system might prevent accidents by strictly maintaining safe distances. But the benchmark still can't be unaided human, rather a human aided by the best assistive technology that can be built (say by the same company).
  - the8472 8y ago
    That's an irrelevant benchmark except for people who pay premium to have the safest ride in the world. Everyone else performs a tradeoff along multiple axes including price, convenience and safety. Not needing a driver, freeing up time and lowering prices increase utility which could even justify a slight increase in risk. But even if we don't want to increase risk then a self-driving system still only has to be as good as humans on average to result in no net-increase of deaths per passenger mile while still increasing overall utility. And more simply, it is silly to expect the maximum possible value to be the minimum requirement.
    - rohit2412 8y ago
      Let's agree to disagree. But if we allow driverless cars on the road (with no backup), it should come after emergency braking, lane keeping assist, side collision assist etc have become mandatory. Just like airbags are mandatory now, and we enforce fuel efficiency on new cars but not existing cars.
notheguyouthink 8y ago
And people will die anyways. It would be the biggest miracle on earth I think if those things ended up being perfect (at least, the ones that work.. not Uber, obviously). So it's all a numbers game. What's acceptable, and what we can improve on.
- ryanmarsh 8y ago
  I had a famous cancer researcher at a world famous cancer treatment hospital tell me (paraphrasing) “we won’t ever see the kinds of breakthroughs we saw in the past because we were reckless back then, foolish even. It was the Wild West.” I’m not saying I want the highways to be a Wild West for self driving cars, but it’s worth admitting it would probably accelerate the pace of innovation.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

by rifung 8y ago

the8472 8y ago

All we need is that they don't kill more people than average human drivers do per passenger-mile. Assuming ride-sharing we could even let them be a little more deadly than human drivers and still save lives.

sandworm101 8y ago
>> Assuming ride-sharing Don't. Cost isn't stopping people today from ridesharing. Carpooling won't become cool just because there is no driver, in fact I could see it becoming less cool as you will be much more alone with strangers. Many people today would be uncomfortable on a bus at night without a third party present (ie the driver, or at least many other strangers). Think about all the extra traffic from autodriver cars doing jobs that today are too expensive. And the double-commute possibility. Your car takes you to work, drives itself home to park/recharge, then drives back to pick you up at the end of the day. Any 2-way trip could become 4-way, doubling the per-trip traffic. Or, rather than pay for parking while you shop downtown, you ask your car to drive around in circles until you are ready to go home.
- chrisco255 8y ago
  Carpooling has already become much more practical with Lyft Line, etc. No driver would mean even cheaper rides. Also, there's no reason your car couldn't park itself at work...or rent itself out (via Lyft/Uber) while you're at work. Assuming we get to that level of tech.
notahacker 8y ago
If cars which require no effort whatsoever to operate and cost significantly less than taxis are on the market, it's a safe bet that being slightly less dangerous per passenger mile will kill far more people than are currently killed on the roads due to more, longer car journeys. That's before we even get into the fact a car which is slightly less likely to cause a fatal accident than the average human driver on an accidents per mile basis is a lot more likely to cause a fatal accident than the average sober, careful and experienced human driver, the complications of estimating fatality rates from small test drive samples and the potential for new bugs to cause massive accident spikes.
- the8472 8y ago
  Of course if people make more journeys, i.e. become more mobile, you could argue that the increased number of deaths should be balanced against life-hours of drivers freed up while also improving quality of life of passengers at the same time, i.e. it might still be QALY-neutral or even positive. > than the average sober, careful and experienced human driver But ultimately we do accept the fatality rates caused by all drivers and not just the good ones as a cost of having individual transportation. If we didn't only teetotalers would be allowed to operate cars to remove one risk factor. And we also accept the risk of inexperienced drivers because we have to teach them eventually, the same reasoning can be applied to autonomous cars (just substitute teaching with data gathering) The total distance driven also does not just depend on technology alone but on urban planning. AVs may change that dramatically over time.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    True, there are QALY arguments for even unreliable SDVs (and also for other things like abolishing speed limits or allowing people to continue to operate older vehicles currently deemed unroadworthy if they can't afford better), but they're dependent on how you adjust for quality and at best orthogonal to standard safety arguments. > But ultimately we do accept the fatility rates caused by all drivers and not just the good ones as a cost of having individual transportation. If we didn't only teetotalers would be allowed to operate cars to remove one risk factor. And we also accept the risk of inexperienced drivers because we have to teach them eventually, the same reasoning can be applied to autonomous cars (just substitute teaching with data gathering) We don't accept the fatality rates caused by all drivers; we confiscate the licenses of or jail bad drivers on a regular basis, and we certainly don't permit drivers being taught to operate commercially. Driver accountability for accidents is part of the social contract that permits individual transportation despite its cost; an corollary of that is that the accident rate is higher than we believe it should be, and that some degree of negligence is involved in the current level of accidents which it would seem unreasonable to exonerate corporations from if they were to replicate them using software. And on a purely practical basis, if you estimate SDV safety based on narrowly beating the mean accident rate across all drivers in tests, and then early commercial adoption tends to be replacing experienced commercial drivers who drive the most miles with the fewest incidents first, you're certainly going to push that accident rate up in the short run even without additional miles driven.
rohit2412 8y ago
No, that's a wrong benchmark. We shouldn't compare driverless cars with the average human driver. We should compare them with the average human driver assisted by the best technology (which is say waymo's driverless software running passively to prevent accidents).
- zaroth 8y ago
  You’re incorrectly assuming that a solution to the problem of self-driving a car is a superset of the problem of passive accident avoidance. If the software is in active control pretty much everything that goes into that is different from software that is deciding if and when to emergency brake. To put it another way, a self-driving system will become safer than human drivers, not because it knows how/when to emergency brake really well, but because it won’t have to emergency brake as frequently as a human does.
  - legolas2412 8y ago
    Sure, I understand that a driverless system might prevent accidents by strictly maintaining safe distances. But the benchmark still can't be unaided human, rather a human aided by the best assistive technology that can be built (say by the same company).
- the8472 8y ago
  That's an irrelevant benchmark except for people who pay premium to have the safest ride in the world. Everyone else performs a tradeoff along multiple axes including price, convenience and safety. Not needing a driver, freeing up time and lowering prices increase utility which could even justify a slight increase in risk. But even if we don't want to increase risk then a self-driving system still only has to be as good as humans on average to result in no net-increase of deaths per passenger mile while still increasing overall utility. And more simply, it is silly to expect the maximum possible value to be the minimum requirement.
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    Let's agree to disagree. But if we allow driverless cars on the road (with no backup), it should come after emergency braking, lane keeping assist, side collision assist etc have become mandatory. Just like airbags are mandatory now, and we enforce fuel efficiency on new cars but not existing cars.

notheguyouthink 8y ago

And people will die anyways. It would be the biggest miracle on earth I think if those things ended up being perfect (at least, the ones that work.. not Uber, obviously). So it's all a numbers game. What's acceptable, and what we can improve on.

ryanmarsh 8y ago
I had a famous cancer researcher at a world famous cancer treatment hospital tell me (paraphrasing) “we won’t ever see the kinds of breakthroughs we saw in the past because we were reckless back then, foolish even. It was the Wild West.” I’m not saying I want the highways to be a Wild West for self driving cars, but it’s worth admitting it would probably accelerate the pace of innovation.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]