3 ms·

> Instead they are concentrating that risk into a small subset of residential streets in some poor neighborhoods. These cars already safer than human drivers a

> 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.
    - crunchyfrog 8y ago
      > First injury is more likely in residential areas. I'm not sure what new argument you are attempting here. Mountain View has lots of heavily residential areas if you are implying otherwise. The Waymo spokesman is completely right, this is a very stupid way of ranking safety. This article is more recent than the one I cited and includes more than twice the number of testing miles so the raw number of incidents is unsurprisingly higher.

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.
  - crunchyfrog 8y ago
    > First injury is more likely in residential areas. I'm not sure what new argument you are attempting here. Mountain View has lots of heavily residential areas if you are implying otherwise. The Waymo spokesman is completely right, this is a very stupid way of ranking safety. This article is more recent than the one I cited and includes more than twice the number of testing miles so the raw number of incidents is unsurprisingly higher.