4 ms·

We are all entitled to our opinions. My opinion is that these vehicles are a lot safer than most human drivers and I do not see any justification for the vitrio

We are all entitled to our opinions. My opinion is that these vehicles are a lot safer than most human drivers and I do not see any justification for the vitriol displayed. Think about it - running a car off the road so you can yell at them to display your displeasure? That’s violence and no one should be subjected to that. Despite what people like to say, our institutions work and work a lot better than many around the world. If you want change, you have to work for it and convince others of your point. Democracy is not about acting out, it’s about civil discourse. All sides deserve to be heard, but in a civil manner.

Retric 8y ago
> My opinion is that these vehicles are a lot safer than most human drivers Eventually, that’s likely to be true, but currently these are sill in the experimental stage and regularly have issues. The collective benifit is probably a net win long term. But, they are not replacing google street view cars or something so as to spread that risk out. Instead they are concentrating that risk into a small subset of residential streets in some poor neighborhoods. Even if it was already slightly safer than human drivers the extra traffic really risks these people’s lives. But because they are low income they don’t expect to be able to afford self driving cars in the next 10+ years. So, that’s meaningful harm without the exception to benifit. Now how a tiny subset of a community responds is predictable but not justifiable.
- crunchyfrog 8y ago
  > Instead they are concentrating that risk into a small subset of residential streets in some poor neighborhoods. These cars already safer than human drivers and they are common on the streets around Google. So unless you mean "risk" as "risk of being slightly inconvenienced", neither of your points is accurate. > But because they are low income they don’t expect to be able to afford self driving cars in the next 10+ years. It is pretty clear that Waymo primarily intends to sell a taxi service, not cars directly. This taxi service would be cheaper and safer than any currently available so people of all incomes would benefit both directly and indirectly (fewer DUI drivers).
  - jackvalentine 8y ago
    > These cars already safer than human drivers I have seen no such proof, source?
  - Retric 8y ago
    Taxi are expensive luxuries, poor people use busses. Also, the last study I found had self driving car tests result in 4x the rate of injury’s vs normal drivers. This should be improving over time and the sample size was 11 injuries over 1.1 million miles, but even still systems in R&D are inherently risky.
    - crunchyfrog 8y ago
      Ride-Hailing Apps May Benefit Poor and Minority Communities The Most, Study Suggests.[1] Waymo has caused a single crash in 5 million miles of driving and no one was hurt.[2] They have been involved in slightly more incidents than would be predicted for a human driver (30 vs. 21) in those 5 million miles but it was not at fault for the others. [1] http://fortune.com/2018/06/30/uber-lyft-poor-minority-communities/ http://fortune.com/2018/06/30/uber-lyft-poor-minority-commun... [2] https://www.wired.com/story/waymo-crash-self-driving-google-arizona/ https://www.wired.com/story/waymo-crash-self-driving-google-...
      - Retric 8y ago
        First injury is more likely in residential areas. Tapping a car is less of an issue than tapping a pedestrian which are harder to detect and predict. Second while the number is still a low enough number not to be particularly relevant other than to say the gross order of magnitude. However... Google's autonomous vehicles have crashed 36 times in the Mountain View area https://www.businessinsider.com/cruise-waymo-apple-which-self-driving-cars-crash-the-most-2018-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/cruise-waymo-apple-which-sel... Waymo spokesperson called the research "deeply flawed" and said it "reflects a poor understanding of the data as it fails to distinguish between a vehicle that drives hundreds of miles per day on public roads, with one that seldom leaves its garage." In other words they don’t disagree with the number of crashes, even when excluding other areas.

Retric 8y ago

> My opinion is that these vehicles are a lot safer than most human drivers Eventually, that’s likely to be true, but currently these are sill in the experimental stage and regularly have issues. The collective benifit is probably a net win long term. But, they are not replacing google street view cars or something so as to spread that risk out. Instead they are concentrating that risk into a small subset of residential streets in some poor neighborhoods. Even if it was already slightly safer than human drivers the extra traffic really risks these people’s lives. But because they are low income they don’t expect to be able to afford self driving cars in the next 10+ years. So, that’s meaningful harm without the exception to benifit. Now how a tiny subset of a community responds is predictable but not justifiable.

crunchyfrog 8y ago
> Instead they are concentrating that risk into a small subset of residential streets in some poor neighborhoods. These cars already safer than human drivers and they are common on the streets around Google. So unless you mean "risk" as "risk of being slightly inconvenienced", neither of your points is accurate. > But because they are low income they don’t expect to be able to afford self driving cars in the next 10+ years. It is pretty clear that Waymo primarily intends to sell a taxi service, not cars directly. This taxi service would be cheaper and safer than any currently available so people of all incomes would benefit both directly and indirectly (fewer DUI drivers).
- jackvalentine 8y ago
  > These cars already safer than human drivers I have seen no such proof, source?
- Retric 8y ago
  Taxi are expensive luxuries, poor people use busses. Also, the last study I found had self driving car tests result in 4x the rate of injury’s vs normal drivers. This should be improving over time and the sample size was 11 injuries over 1.1 million miles, but even still systems in R&D are inherently risky.
  - crunchyfrog 8y ago
    Ride-Hailing Apps May Benefit Poor and Minority Communities The Most, Study Suggests.[1] Waymo has caused a single crash in 5 million miles of driving and no one was hurt.[2] They have been involved in slightly more incidents than would be predicted for a human driver (30 vs. 21) in those 5 million miles but it was not at fault for the others. [1] http://fortune.com/2018/06/30/uber-lyft-poor-minority-communities/ http://fortune.com/2018/06/30/uber-lyft-poor-minority-commun... [2] https://www.wired.com/story/waymo-crash-self-driving-google-arizona/ https://www.wired.com/story/waymo-crash-self-driving-google-...
    - Retric 8y ago
      First injury is more likely in residential areas. Tapping a car is less of an issue than tapping a pedestrian which are harder to detect and predict. Second while the number is still a low enough number not to be particularly relevant other than to say the gross order of magnitude. However... Google's autonomous vehicles have crashed 36 times in the Mountain View area https://www.businessinsider.com/cruise-waymo-apple-which-self-driving-cars-crash-the-most-2018-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/cruise-waymo-apple-which-sel... Waymo spokesperson called the research "deeply flawed" and said it "reflects a poor understanding of the data as it fails to distinguish between a vehicle that drives hundreds of miles per day on public roads, with one that seldom leaves its garage." In other words they don’t disagree with the number of crashes, even when excluding other areas.