5 ms·

the 80/20 principle says it's going to be a long, long time before level 5 autonomy is reached. That's 100% in all conditions. In fact, I would say it's more th

the 80/20 principle says it's going to be a long, long time before level 5 autonomy is reached. That's 100% in all conditions. In fact, I would say it's more theory than attainable. There's a reason they're testing in Phoenix. It has almost no Inclement weather. Throw a little snow, mud, or sleet in there and it gets hairy fast. Level 2 is basically the 20% of effort in 80/20. It's exponential effort from then on out.

panarky 7y ago
We shouldn't set a dramatically higher safety standard for autonomous drivers than human drivers. When autonomous drivers have the same or fewer injuries per billion miles driven as human drivers, then for all practical purposes it doesn't matter if it's level 4 or level 5.
- ipython 7y ago
  So it’s ok to have 1+ million dead per year? [0] If so why go through all this trouble to creat autonomous vehicles? I, for one, am glad this was not the prevailing attitude when commercial airliner regulatory bodies were set up. [0] https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/ https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/
  - triceratops 7y ago
    Yes, even if autonomous vehicles are on average exactly as safe as human drivers, they're still worth the effort. Here are some reasons: 1. They're cheaper. This sounds crude, until you realize that this makes things like buses and shared rides far more viable. Meaning millions of people have a better commute and collectively save many lifetimes worth of time. It can also mean less air pollution, due to less traffic congestion (this only applies if congestion pricing is done), which will also save lives. 2. They can always get better over time. Humans can't. 3. Fewer parking lots are needed, which makes cities far more pleasant to live in. 4. Disabled, elderly people and children have better mobility, and aren't dependent on others to drive them everywhere.
    - majormajor 7y ago
      > 1. They're cheaper. This sounds crude, until you realize that this makes things like buses and shared rides far more viable. Meaning millions of people have a better commute and collectively save many lifetimes worth of time. It can also mean less air pollution, due to less traffic congestion (this only applies if congestion pricing is done), which will also save lives. IMO autonomous vehicles are just going to further push public transit into something just for the poor. All the convenience and comfort and privacy of sitting in your own vehicle, but now you don't have to drive yourself! Why would you choose anything else?
      - anchpop 7y ago
        Sure, but but buses would be cheaper to run if they didn't need a driver. My university runs a bus that you have to call and it drives directly to you and picks you up, I could imagine something like that being more common (for public transit)
        masonic 7y ago
        buses would be cheaper to run if they didn't need a driver But those drivers will be paid regardless, given the strength of public sector unions. So, no savings.
        jodrellblank 7y ago
        But the buses wouldn't need windscreens or wipers or chairs or steering wheels or pedals or payment/coin handling, and the drivers wouldn't need uniforms or eye tests or retraining on routes or overtime or time and a half for holidays. Bus companies won't have to insure the busses for human drivers. So, yes savings. Nyah on your "unions defending humans against exploitation are the worst thing ever" narrative.
      - triceratops 7y ago
        That's why I mentioned congestion pricing. Or inverting the carpool/non-carpool lane ratios i.e. every lane is carpool-only except those designated as single-occupant-allowed, which makes driving by yourself expensive in terms of time. Also, if you don't have to accommodate a human driver and controls, many safety features, bulky gasoline tank, and trunk space, automobile design could change radically. Self-driving taxicabs that look like small pods, or covered golf carts, could be used for individual travel, increasing space efficiency.
  - im3w1l 7y ago
    > If so why go through all this trouble to creat autonomous vehicles? So we can sleep in the car. Or watch netflix. Or drink. Saving 1+ million per year while you know, very nice, is not the main reason for doing this.
  - segh 7y ago
    Zero deaths are ideal, but the point is that self driving cars don't have to clear a very high bar. The human driver alternative doesn't do very well, as outlined in your link.
    - LoSboccacc 7y ago
      the link show aggregate death for all kind of road vehicles and all kind of weathers. select for clement weather, exclude bikers, filter by city drivig so the comparison is in line with what waymo does and suddenly the bar is much much higher.
- Nition 7y ago
  I bet most people think they're a better-than-average driver though. So if the cars are only a little better than the average person, you'll still have everyone assuming it's less safe for them.
- rayiner 7y ago
  That’s a straw man. Humans routinely drive in inclement weather. In Atlanta during the summer I85 will maintain 50 mph in rain so hard that you can’t see the lines on the road. Expecting self driving cars to handle those conditions isn’t setting a higher standard.
  - shiftpgdn 7y ago
    This may be a contribution to the number of fatalities and major injuries as a result of auto accidents. I think the future of self driving vehicles will just be inclement weather delays like we have with flying.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Self driving cars that can't operate in heavy snow or rain will be totally useless. One of the lessons of engineering history that self-driving car proponents fail to grasp is that promising technology often fails to get traction because it can't close the final 5%. Supersonic aircraft, for example, have effectively been derailed by people on the ground near airports complaining about sonic booms. VTOL aircraft never replaced aircraft because of control problems. Flying wing aircraft never became popular for similar reasons.
glangdale 7y ago
Having been forced to visit Chandler more than a few times, I'd agree. Also, the prospect of being accidentally killed in a horrible car crash is less poignant if the alternative is more time spent in Chandler.

panarky 7y ago

We shouldn't set a dramatically higher safety standard for autonomous drivers than human drivers. When autonomous drivers have the same or fewer injuries per billion miles driven as human drivers, then for all practical purposes it doesn't matter if it's level 4 or level 5.

ipython 7y ago
So it’s ok to have 1+ million dead per year? [0] If so why go through all this trouble to creat autonomous vehicles? I, for one, am glad this was not the prevailing attitude when commercial airliner regulatory bodies were set up. [0] https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/ https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/
- triceratops 7y ago
  Yes, even if autonomous vehicles are on average exactly as safe as human drivers, they're still worth the effort. Here are some reasons: 1. They're cheaper. This sounds crude, until you realize that this makes things like buses and shared rides far more viable. Meaning millions of people have a better commute and collectively save many lifetimes worth of time. It can also mean less air pollution, due to less traffic congestion (this only applies if congestion pricing is done), which will also save lives. 2. They can always get better over time. Humans can't. 3. Fewer parking lots are needed, which makes cities far more pleasant to live in. 4. Disabled, elderly people and children have better mobility, and aren't dependent on others to drive them everywhere.
  - majormajor 7y ago
    > 1. They're cheaper. This sounds crude, until you realize that this makes things like buses and shared rides far more viable. Meaning millions of people have a better commute and collectively save many lifetimes worth of time. It can also mean less air pollution, due to less traffic congestion (this only applies if congestion pricing is done), which will also save lives. IMO autonomous vehicles are just going to further push public transit into something just for the poor. All the convenience and comfort and privacy of sitting in your own vehicle, but now you don't have to drive yourself! Why would you choose anything else?
    - anchpop 7y ago
      Sure, but but buses would be cheaper to run if they didn't need a driver. My university runs a bus that you have to call and it drives directly to you and picks you up, I could imagine something like that being more common (for public transit)
      - masonic 7y ago
        buses would be cheaper to run if they didn't need a driver But those drivers will be paid regardless, given the strength of public sector unions. So, no savings.
        jodrellblank 7y ago
        But the buses wouldn't need windscreens or wipers or chairs or steering wheels or pedals or payment/coin handling, and the drivers wouldn't need uniforms or eye tests or retraining on routes or overtime or time and a half for holidays. Bus companies won't have to insure the busses for human drivers. So, yes savings. Nyah on your "unions defending humans against exploitation are the worst thing ever" narrative.
    - triceratops 7y ago
      That's why I mentioned congestion pricing. Or inverting the carpool/non-carpool lane ratios i.e. every lane is carpool-only except those designated as single-occupant-allowed, which makes driving by yourself expensive in terms of time. Also, if you don't have to accommodate a human driver and controls, many safety features, bulky gasoline tank, and trunk space, automobile design could change radically. Self-driving taxicabs that look like small pods, or covered golf carts, could be used for individual travel, increasing space efficiency.
- im3w1l 7y ago
  > If so why go through all this trouble to creat autonomous vehicles? So we can sleep in the car. Or watch netflix. Or drink. Saving 1+ million per year while you know, very nice, is not the main reason for doing this.
- segh 7y ago
  Zero deaths are ideal, but the point is that self driving cars don't have to clear a very high bar. The human driver alternative doesn't do very well, as outlined in your link.
  - LoSboccacc 7y ago
    the link show aggregate death for all kind of road vehicles and all kind of weathers. select for clement weather, exclude bikers, filter by city drivig so the comparison is in line with what waymo does and suddenly the bar is much much higher.
Nition 7y ago
I bet most people think they're a better-than-average driver though. So if the cars are only a little better than the average person, you'll still have everyone assuming it's less safe for them.
rayiner 7y ago
That’s a straw man. Humans routinely drive in inclement weather. In Atlanta during the summer I85 will maintain 50 mph in rain so hard that you can’t see the lines on the road. Expecting self driving cars to handle those conditions isn’t setting a higher standard.
- shiftpgdn 7y ago
  This may be a contribution to the number of fatalities and major injuries as a result of auto accidents. I think the future of self driving vehicles will just be inclement weather delays like we have with flying.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Self driving cars that can't operate in heavy snow or rain will be totally useless. One of the lessons of engineering history that self-driving car proponents fail to grasp is that promising technology often fails to get traction because it can't close the final 5%. Supersonic aircraft, for example, have effectively been derailed by people on the ground near airports complaining about sonic booms. VTOL aircraft never replaced aircraft because of control problems. Flying wing aircraft never became popular for similar reasons.

glangdale 7y ago

Having been forced to visit Chandler more than a few times, I'd agree. Also, the prospect of being accidentally killed in a horrible car crash is less poignant if the alternative is more time spent in Chandler.