3 ms·

The fraction of serious accidents that are caused by mechanical failure is just 12%. Of mechanically induced accidents, two-thirds were caused by the failure/d

The fraction of serious accidents that are caused by mechanical failure is just 12%. Of mechanically induced accidents, two-thirds were caused by the failure/degradation of the tires, wheels, or brakes. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811059 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... So for diagnostics other than tires, wheels, and brakes, we are talking about a system that can prevent at most 4% of accidents, and probably much, much less. Given the huge number of false positives, I'd much rather cars notify the driver in detail (not just a vague "check engine" warning) and let the driver decide how to proceed, rather than irrevocably disabling themselves. Consider: we could also probably eliminate 20% of accidents by prohibiting drivers from driving in wet conditions, but instead we reasonably instruct drivers to drive more cautiously and accept that some wetness induced accidents will occur nevertheless.

alphabettsy 7y ago
In what world is preventing 4% of serious accidents trivial? That’s likely hundreds or thousands of crashes per year given the numbers involved.
- jessriedel 7y ago
  See "probably much, much less" (since diagnostic systems have many false negatives, and only work on some subsystems) and my argument about wet conditions (which causes greater than 4% of accidents). Furthermore, the absolute number of accidents is not a sensible number to look at unless you're also totaling up the absolute number of drivers inconvenience. Both the absolute number of accidents and the absolute number of downsides (wasted time, driver frustration, unnecessary repairs) will be proportional to the number of cars, so you should divide out by the number of cars.
  - alphabettsy 7y ago
    Probably much, much less is meaningless since it means nothing. I’m pretty sure if there are 20,000 serious accidents per year and some lines of code alone prevent 100 (0.5%) that’s noteworthy.
    - jessriedel 7y ago
      First, you are not engaging with any of the points in my reply. (Do you disagree that the fraction of accidents that diagnostic systems can plausibly stop is <<4%? We can't tell.) Second, you keep suggesting that I made claims about this being "trivial" or "noteworthy". I did not. I made a claim about what would be a good system, not the notability of the absolute number of accidents stopped.
nurettin 7y ago
>> prohibiting drivers from driving in wet conditions I will not consider this. Because it sounds ridiculous. Prohibiting whom and how exactly, from driving how/what?, and how wet? And how do you measure that? And at the cost of what?

alphabettsy 7y ago

In what world is preventing 4% of serious accidents trivial? That’s likely hundreds or thousands of crashes per year given the numbers involved.

jessriedel 7y ago
See "probably much, much less" (since diagnostic systems have many false negatives, and only work on some subsystems) and my argument about wet conditions (which causes greater than 4% of accidents). Furthermore, the absolute number of accidents is not a sensible number to look at unless you're also totaling up the absolute number of drivers inconvenience. Both the absolute number of accidents and the absolute number of downsides (wasted time, driver frustration, unnecessary repairs) will be proportional to the number of cars, so you should divide out by the number of cars.
- alphabettsy 7y ago
  Probably much, much less is meaningless since it means nothing. I’m pretty sure if there are 20,000 serious accidents per year and some lines of code alone prevent 100 (0.5%) that’s noteworthy.
  - jessriedel 7y ago
    First, you are not engaging with any of the points in my reply. (Do you disagree that the fraction of accidents that diagnostic systems can plausibly stop is <<4%? We can't tell.) Second, you keep suggesting that I made claims about this being "trivial" or "noteworthy". I did not. I made a claim about what would be a good system, not the notability of the absolute number of accidents stopped.

nurettin 7y ago

>> prohibiting drivers from driving in wet conditions I will not consider this. Because it sounds ridiculous. Prohibiting whom and how exactly, from driving how/what?, and how wet? And how do you measure that? And at the cost of what?