6 ms·

I'm expecting to see waymo autonomous vehicle fatalities in the near future!

jdminhbg 6y ago
You mean like this? https://www.11alive.com/article/traffic/fatal-wreck-75-north-120-marietta/85-3be69a7f-844a-4206-b8fe-1e1614b25f96 https://www.11alive.com/article/traffic/fatal-wreck-75-north...
- shiftpgdn 6y ago
  Even a simple level 2 system with driver monitoring like comma.ai in big rigs would save tens of thousands of lives per year.
  - csours 6y ago
    I'm not sure tens of thousands of people die in accidents with big rigs every year (IIHS says around 5,000)[0]. Additionally, many big rig accidents could not be avoided even with perfect driving - they are caused by things like weather, other drivers doing stupid things, sudden stops in traffic, etc. AI does not really improve your stopping distance in a big rig. 0. https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/large-trucks https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/large...
    - jdminhbg 6y ago
      > they are caused by things like weather, other drivers doing stupid things, sudden stops in traffic, etc. AI does not really improve your stopping distance in a big rig. AI doesn't need to improve your stopping distance, just your propensity to follow by more than your stopping distance. Even simple adaptive cruise control can do that.
      - almost_usual 6y ago
        > AI doesn't need to improve your stopping distance, just your propensity to follow by more than your stopping distance. Even simple adaptive cruise control can do that. Do you write AI software for self driving vehicles?
    - tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
      > AI does not really improve your stopping distance in a big rig. It doesn't improve the braking distance, but it should be able to improve the stopping distance if it can react faster.
      - csours 6y ago
        Hmm, my general point is that there is a lot of energy in a semi running at highway speed. AI could help, but that energy doesn't just go away.
    - scoopertrooper 6y ago
      An autonomous truck could drive twice as conservatively as a regular truck driver or even just pull over in bad weather and still deliver its load faster than a human driver. A human has to stop for 10 hours every 11 hours, while an AI truck and just sail on through. Tandem drivers might be competitive on time, but now you're paying two humans!
      - Judgmentality 6y ago
        > Tandem drivers might be competitive on time, but now you're paying two humans! But you're only paying them for the time they're driving - so this is actually incredibly efficient.
        mamon 6y ago
        That's not how labor laws work in many countries - if a driver is sleeping in the car, and not in his own bed at home that still counts as working time.
        mewpmewp2 6y ago
        But they reach the destination in half the time.
        scoopertrooper 6y ago
        I actually looked into this, you're half right. Truckers don't get paid by the hour, rather they're paid by the mile (or km). Each member of the pairing gets paid for half of the total distance of the journey. However, tandem teams are in high demand as customers are willing to pay a significant premium to get their goods delivered quickly. This has resulted in team drivers earning more for a unit of travel than solo operators.
      - whatisthiseven 6y ago
        That article on efficiency comes to mind: currently businesses have some slack built in on their deliveries because they can only arrive so quickly. If AI trucks are the norm, and all that slack is eliminated for efficiency sake because the "AI truck can always get here in 13 hours, no stopping", then that increased efficiency only raises the urgency that it arrives on time, thereby eliminating the time savings on delivery.
    - de_watcher 6y ago
      It can actually improve stopping. Theoretically you can pack some systems to disintegrate the truck in case of an emergency, you don't have a driver inside to save.
    - sam_goody 6y ago
      The one big rig accident that I know of personally was road rage - a car cut off a truck at at 3AM on the entry into Phoenix, and the rig got even by running the car off the road. Now, that is entirely anecdotal, and I have no idea how common such things are, but these type of things would at least be avoided by self driving.
      - csours 6y ago
        I wonder if Self Driving Vehicles will retaliate by reporting bad drivers to the police instead of traditional road rage.
  - Veserv 6y ago
    That is a completely unjustified statement. The prevailing rate of large truck fatalities in the US in 2017 was 1.6 per 100M miles which is ~1 per 60M miles [1]. The comma.ai website markets that they have driven 25M miles, so there is insufficient data to conclude that such a system would improve safety at this time. [1] https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/large-truck-and-bus-crash-facts-2017 https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/large-t...
    - itsoktocry 6y ago
      >there is insufficient data to conclude that such a system would improve safety at this time. The hype behind self-driving is getting out of control. Sure, from a technological viewpoint it appears that, one day, computers should be able to drive better than humans. But none of this has been proven yet.
  - KKKKkkkk1 6y ago
    I'm actually curious whether there are any trustworthy studies showing that driving automation helps safety, for any type of automation. I can buy the claim that emergency braking helps (although not as much as one would expect [0]). But is there good data that shows that cruise control helps? Lane keeping? [0] https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/4/20898773/aaa-study-automatic-emergency-braking-pedestrian-detection https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/4/20898773/aaa-study-automa...
    - tialaramex 6y ago
      That AAA test uses a disintegrating dummy. So it looks really bad - the pedestrian gets smashed to pieces. But notice the car stops in most of these sequences almost immediately afterwards. That's because the vehicle was already braking, significantly reducing the impact energy, but it was hard to see because the AAA chose to shoot it in the most dramatic way. The article does mention the main things Americans could do if they actually wanted to reduce the number of pedestrian deaths, which they don't - stop buying SUVs and other oversize vehicles that disproportionately kill pedestrians.
      - sam_goody 6y ago
        I suspect that most Americans care more about not killing themselves than in preventing overall number of deaths. The chances of surviving in an oversize vehicle are disproportionately higher than in a tiny car (what I have heard referred to as an "aluminum covered electric bike").
        bagacrap 6y ago
        yes, it's an arms race/prisoners dilemma, which is why the government needs to step in and align incentives. Personally I think a danger tax (similar to gas guzzler taxes) makes sense.
      - KKKKkkkk1 6y ago
        The pedestrian dummies in the AAA tests are standard test dummies. They disintegrate so that the test driver does not get hurt in the case of an impact. The video looks really bad not because the AAA staged it this way, but because it's really bad when a vehicle driving at 20 mph in broad daylight hits a pedestrian that's stationary or moves slowly along a line.
derwiki 6y ago
You can have fatalities and still have several orders of magnitude fewer fatalities than non-AV.
- itsoktocry 6y ago
  This is true, but ignores two things: 1. People will (over)react to autonomous deaths. Every AV death "matters" more. 2. Getting the death rate below non-AV is difficult to test. Accidents are rare. Are you going to let these things loose on the public for hundreds of millions of miles before determining that the death rate might not be better yet?
  - derwiki 6y ago
    A quick search shows in January 2020 that Waymo has already driven 20 million miles. So I guess that’s the plan?
  - bagacrap 6y ago
    fatalities probably track pretty closely with the overall number of injury-causing accidents, of which there are over 100k per year in this country where large trucks or buses are involved. So, hypothetically, rolling out at 1% and closely monitoring all accident types seems like a fine plan imo. At least one type of fatality will be eliminated straight away --- no truck drivers will be dying :-)
  - ghaff 6y ago
    1. And any accident of a properly-used/maintained vehicle will be viewed as some company's fault because of design/software flaw. 2. There will doubtless be accidents that will be quite different from the sorts of accidents humans have. And those will be viewed as proof that these cars aren't safe.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

You mean like this? https://www.11alive.com/article/traffic/fatal-wreck-75-north-120-marietta/85-3be69a7f-844a-4206-b8fe-1e1614b25f96 https://www.11alive.com/article/traffic/fatal-wreck-75-north...

shiftpgdn 6y ago
Even a simple level 2 system with driver monitoring like comma.ai in big rigs would save tens of thousands of lives per year.
- csours 6y ago
  I'm not sure tens of thousands of people die in accidents with big rigs every year (IIHS says around 5,000)[0]. Additionally, many big rig accidents could not be avoided even with perfect driving - they are caused by things like weather, other drivers doing stupid things, sudden stops in traffic, etc. AI does not really improve your stopping distance in a big rig. 0. https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/large-trucks https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/large...
  - jdminhbg 6y ago
    > they are caused by things like weather, other drivers doing stupid things, sudden stops in traffic, etc. AI does not really improve your stopping distance in a big rig. AI doesn't need to improve your stopping distance, just your propensity to follow by more than your stopping distance. Even simple adaptive cruise control can do that.
    - almost_usual 6y ago
      > AI doesn't need to improve your stopping distance, just your propensity to follow by more than your stopping distance. Even simple adaptive cruise control can do that. Do you write AI software for self driving vehicles?
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
    > AI does not really improve your stopping distance in a big rig. It doesn't improve the braking distance, but it should be able to improve the stopping distance if it can react faster.
    - csours 6y ago
      Hmm, my general point is that there is a lot of energy in a semi running at highway speed. AI could help, but that energy doesn't just go away.
  - scoopertrooper 6y ago
    An autonomous truck could drive twice as conservatively as a regular truck driver or even just pull over in bad weather and still deliver its load faster than a human driver. A human has to stop for 10 hours every 11 hours, while an AI truck and just sail on through. Tandem drivers might be competitive on time, but now you're paying two humans!
    - Judgmentality 6y ago
      > Tandem drivers might be competitive on time, but now you're paying two humans! But you're only paying them for the time they're driving - so this is actually incredibly efficient.
      - mamon 6y ago
        That's not how labor laws work in many countries - if a driver is sleeping in the car, and not in his own bed at home that still counts as working time.
        mewpmewp2 6y ago
        But they reach the destination in half the time.
      - scoopertrooper 6y ago
        I actually looked into this, you're half right. Truckers don't get paid by the hour, rather they're paid by the mile (or km). Each member of the pairing gets paid for half of the total distance of the journey. However, tandem teams are in high demand as customers are willing to pay a significant premium to get their goods delivered quickly. This has resulted in team drivers earning more for a unit of travel than solo operators.
    - whatisthiseven 6y ago
      That article on efficiency comes to mind: currently businesses have some slack built in on their deliveries because they can only arrive so quickly. If AI trucks are the norm, and all that slack is eliminated for efficiency sake because the "AI truck can always get here in 13 hours, no stopping", then that increased efficiency only raises the urgency that it arrives on time, thereby eliminating the time savings on delivery.
  - de_watcher 6y ago
    It can actually improve stopping. Theoretically you can pack some systems to disintegrate the truck in case of an emergency, you don't have a driver inside to save.
  - sam_goody 6y ago
    The one big rig accident that I know of personally was road rage - a car cut off a truck at at 3AM on the entry into Phoenix, and the rig got even by running the car off the road. Now, that is entirely anecdotal, and I have no idea how common such things are, but these type of things would at least be avoided by self driving.
    - csours 6y ago
      I wonder if Self Driving Vehicles will retaliate by reporting bad drivers to the police instead of traditional road rage.
- Veserv 6y ago
  That is a completely unjustified statement. The prevailing rate of large truck fatalities in the US in 2017 was 1.6 per 100M miles which is ~1 per 60M miles [1]. The comma.ai website markets that they have driven 25M miles, so there is insufficient data to conclude that such a system would improve safety at this time. [1] https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/large-truck-and-bus-crash-facts-2017 https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/large-t...
  - itsoktocry 6y ago
    >there is insufficient data to conclude that such a system would improve safety at this time. The hype behind self-driving is getting out of control. Sure, from a technological viewpoint it appears that, one day, computers should be able to drive better than humans. But none of this has been proven yet.
- KKKKkkkk1 6y ago
  I'm actually curious whether there are any trustworthy studies showing that driving automation helps safety, for any type of automation. I can buy the claim that emergency braking helps (although not as much as one would expect [0]). But is there good data that shows that cruise control helps? Lane keeping? [0] https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/4/20898773/aaa-study-automatic-emergency-braking-pedestrian-detection https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/4/20898773/aaa-study-automa...
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    That AAA test uses a disintegrating dummy. So it looks really bad - the pedestrian gets smashed to pieces. But notice the car stops in most of these sequences almost immediately afterwards. That's because the vehicle was already braking, significantly reducing the impact energy, but it was hard to see because the AAA chose to shoot it in the most dramatic way. The article does mention the main things Americans could do if they actually wanted to reduce the number of pedestrian deaths, which they don't - stop buying SUVs and other oversize vehicles that disproportionately kill pedestrians.
    - sam_goody 6y ago
      I suspect that most Americans care more about not killing themselves than in preventing overall number of deaths. The chances of surviving in an oversize vehicle are disproportionately higher than in a tiny car (what I have heard referred to as an "aluminum covered electric bike").
      - bagacrap 6y ago
        yes, it's an arms race/prisoners dilemma, which is why the government needs to step in and align incentives. Personally I think a danger tax (similar to gas guzzler taxes) makes sense.
    - KKKKkkkk1 6y ago
      The pedestrian dummies in the AAA tests are standard test dummies. They disintegrate so that the test driver does not get hurt in the case of an impact. The video looks really bad not because the AAA staged it this way, but because it's really bad when a vehicle driving at 20 mph in broad daylight hits a pedestrian that's stationary or moves slowly along a line.

derwiki 6y ago

You can have fatalities and still have several orders of magnitude fewer fatalities than non-AV.

itsoktocry 6y ago
This is true, but ignores two things: 1. People will (over)react to autonomous deaths. Every AV death "matters" more. 2. Getting the death rate below non-AV is difficult to test. Accidents are rare. Are you going to let these things loose on the public for hundreds of millions of miles before determining that the death rate might not be better yet?
- derwiki 6y ago
  A quick search shows in January 2020 that Waymo has already driven 20 million miles. So I guess that’s the plan?
- bagacrap 6y ago
  fatalities probably track pretty closely with the overall number of injury-causing accidents, of which there are over 100k per year in this country where large trucks or buses are involved. So, hypothetically, rolling out at 1% and closely monitoring all accident types seems like a fine plan imo. At least one type of fatality will be eliminated straight away --- no truck drivers will be dying :-)
- ghaff 6y ago
  1. And any accident of a properly-used/maintained vehicle will be viewed as some company's fault because of design/software flaw. 2. There will doubtless be accidents that will be quite different from the sorts of accidents humans have. And those will be viewed as proof that these cars aren't safe.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]