3 ms·

That's hardly a fair comparison, given how many people are driving vs. how many automated driver systems are out there.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
Propose an alternative comparison that is not so outlandish as zero deaths ever. We're currently at six deaths with almost a million Tesla vehicles sold and 3+ billions of Autopilot miles travelled [1]. [1] https://electrek.co/2020/04/22/tesla-autopilot-data-3-billion-miles/ https://electrek.co/2020/04/22/tesla-autopilot-data-3-billio...
- beervirus 6y ago
  The fair comparison would obviously look at deaths per mile traveled for each category, not total deaths.
  - Retric 6y ago
    That gets into fun with statistics. On a pure deaths per mile basis Autopilot is already safer than the average car driven by the average driver. However, people downplay that by adjusting for various things making them relatively equivalent with not enough data to really say one way or another. Basically, there is simply not enough data to be statistically significant improvement or detriment vs drivers, but there is enough data to say they are safe enough to be used.
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      How can you say autopilot is safer when the human driver has to take over when it sees the autopilot isn’t up to the task? Isn’t the prima fascia evidence that the human driver is safer?
      - Retric 6y ago
        Different areas of expertise, a computer’s doesn’t get bored, drunk, or text people while driving. Safety is just about not crashing, actually getting somewhere is a different story. In some ways having a human take over in difficult conditions is stacking the deck, but computers are also taking over in an crash to slow down before impact and people are adjusting how much autopilot speeds. So, it’s kind of a grey area, but at a minimum we know autopilot isn’t dramatically worse than humans.
        amanaplanacanal 6y ago
        Of course it is. Count every time the human has to take over as a crash for the computer, and then see what your statistics look like. The computer is much worse.
        Retric 6y ago
        Every time the computer is handing off control that’s a multi second process where it could have come to a complete stop instead. Essentially that’s the same thing as the vehicle stability assistance kicking in, which very much favors the machines. Instead you need to count the number of times someone has actively taken control to avoid a collision, which is rare enough it’s hard to find examples.
        amanaplanacanal 6y ago
        You seem to be claiming that the computer really is good enough today for fully autonomous driving, and that the need for the driver to pay attention and keep hands in the wheel is really unnecessary. Is that right?
        Retric 6y ago
        I don’t think fully autonomous driving is ready, fully autonomous human equivalent accident avoidance is a much simpler problem that seems to be largely solved. Having an alert driver paying attention is a net benefit, but in practice people don’t continuously pay full attention for long stretches with autonomous driving. If you assume people are paying attention say 90% of the time in practice then their only catching less than 90% of the potential accidents they could avoid. Further, assuming identical rates of accidents to the average person the other car is at fault 1/2 the increase is further reduced. As such, I think the regulation is a good idea for now as the net benefit to fully autonomous driving is to the individual while the risks include other drivers.
  - totalZero 6y ago
    I think deaths per hour driven gives a more appropriate weighting to city driving, which presents different complications and hazards from those encountered on a highway.
    - beervirus 6y ago
      That also seems reasonable, although city driving will be biased toward more accidents, but fewer fatalities.
- wtallis 6y ago
  The fact that you've edited your comment to reference number of vehicles sold and miles traveled shows that you don't need any help coming up with an alternative comparison that is more reasonable. You already know that the numbers you initially cited need to be divided by their share of miles driven.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    The fact that I've edited my comment reflects that I want it to be historically accurate after the edit window times out. Hacker News participants aren't going to have any impact on regulators, so while I try to persuade that this automation development is necessary (because I genuinely believe that, and have lost loved ones [plural] to vehicular accidents), it's moot beyond discussion (and there are so many discussions [1]). Some will argue that any deaths are too much, other will argue that many deaths are reasonable. I argue that some deaths will occur, which will lead to less deaths overall over the long term (which I would also argue is a goal we could all agree on), and I don't believe this is an unreasonable position to hold. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?q=tesla+autopilot https://hn.algolia.com/?q=tesla+autopilot
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  I don't know if the OP asked for "zero deaths ever", but: Given that current traffic fatalities and injuries are rare events compared with vehicle miles traveled, we show that fully autonomous vehicles would have to be driven hundreds of millions of miles and sometimes hundreds of billions of miles to demonstrate their safety in terms of fatalities and injuries. From "Driving to Safety - How Many Miles of Driving Would It Take to Demonstrate Autonomous Vehicle Reliability?"
vmception 6y ago
The fair comparison will show the same thing lol. Each car in with the automated system will provide data to update all the other cars with automated systems. I trust that process way more than individual unconnected human drivers. I don't trust Elon or Tesla corporation to care about human lives but I do trust that it will eventually get better and very quickly. So, thank you for the altruism everyone, it will be fine.
Retric 6y ago
6 is also a total not a rate per year like 38,000. The rate of self driving car deaths is roughly identical to the rate of non self driving car deaths. However, unlike drivers these systems can significantly improve over time.
- roland35 6y ago
  I think drivers can improve over time as well, especially with assistive technology such as lane departure warning, blind spot detectors, etc becoming more prevalent. Luckily self driving isn't an all or nothing deal!
  - Retric 6y ago
    People are already comparing individual models with and without self driving features to adjust for things like visibility. As these cars already have those driver assist features having them become more commonplace isn’t going to change the relaxant statistics. That said, unknown future forms of driver assistance might be relevant, but I would lump that in with better cars.

Propose an alternative comparison that is not so outlandish as zero deaths ever. We're currently at six deaths with almost a million Tesla vehicles sold and 3+ billions of Autopilot miles travelled [1]. [1] https://electrek.co/2020/04/22/tesla-autopilot-data-3-billion-miles/ https://electrek.co/2020/04/22/tesla-autopilot-data-3-billio...

beervirus 6y ago
The fair comparison would obviously look at deaths per mile traveled for each category, not total deaths.
- Retric 6y ago
  That gets into fun with statistics. On a pure deaths per mile basis Autopilot is already safer than the average car driven by the average driver. However, people downplay that by adjusting for various things making them relatively equivalent with not enough data to really say one way or another. Basically, there is simply not enough data to be statistically significant improvement or detriment vs drivers, but there is enough data to say they are safe enough to be used.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    How can you say autopilot is safer when the human driver has to take over when it sees the autopilot isn’t up to the task? Isn’t the prima fascia evidence that the human driver is safer?
    - Retric 6y ago
      Different areas of expertise, a computer’s doesn’t get bored, drunk, or text people while driving. Safety is just about not crashing, actually getting somewhere is a different story. In some ways having a human take over in difficult conditions is stacking the deck, but computers are also taking over in an crash to slow down before impact and people are adjusting how much autopilot speeds. So, it’s kind of a grey area, but at a minimum we know autopilot isn’t dramatically worse than humans.
      - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
        Of course it is. Count every time the human has to take over as a crash for the computer, and then see what your statistics look like. The computer is much worse.
        Retric 6y ago
        Every time the computer is handing off control that’s a multi second process where it could have come to a complete stop instead. Essentially that’s the same thing as the vehicle stability assistance kicking in, which very much favors the machines. Instead you need to count the number of times someone has actively taken control to avoid a collision, which is rare enough it’s hard to find examples.
        amanaplanacanal 6y ago
        You seem to be claiming that the computer really is good enough today for fully autonomous driving, and that the need for the driver to pay attention and keep hands in the wheel is really unnecessary. Is that right?
        Retric 6y ago
        I don’t think fully autonomous driving is ready, fully autonomous human equivalent accident avoidance is a much simpler problem that seems to be largely solved. Having an alert driver paying attention is a net benefit, but in practice people don’t continuously pay full attention for long stretches with autonomous driving. If you assume people are paying attention say 90% of the time in practice then their only catching less than 90% of the potential accidents they could avoid. Further, assuming identical rates of accidents to the average person the other car is at fault 1/2 the increase is further reduced. As such, I think the regulation is a good idea for now as the net benefit to fully autonomous driving is to the individual while the risks include other drivers.
- totalZero 6y ago
  I think deaths per hour driven gives a more appropriate weighting to city driving, which presents different complications and hazards from those encountered on a highway.
  - beervirus 6y ago
    That also seems reasonable, although city driving will be biased toward more accidents, but fewer fatalities.
wtallis 6y ago
The fact that you've edited your comment to reference number of vehicles sold and miles traveled shows that you don't need any help coming up with an alternative comparison that is more reasonable. You already know that the numbers you initially cited need to be divided by their share of miles driven.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  The fact that I've edited my comment reflects that I want it to be historically accurate after the edit window times out. Hacker News participants aren't going to have any impact on regulators, so while I try to persuade that this automation development is necessary (because I genuinely believe that, and have lost loved ones [plural] to vehicular accidents), it's moot beyond discussion (and there are so many discussions [1]). Some will argue that any deaths are too much, other will argue that many deaths are reasonable. I argue that some deaths will occur, which will lead to less deaths overall over the long term (which I would also argue is a goal we could all agree on), and I don't believe this is an unreasonable position to hold. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?q=tesla+autopilot https://hn.algolia.com/?q=tesla+autopilot
YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
I don't know if the OP asked for "zero deaths ever", but: Given that current traffic fatalities and injuries are rare events compared with vehicle miles traveled, we show that fully autonomous vehicles would have to be driven hundreds of millions of miles and sometimes hundreds of billions of miles to demonstrate their safety in terms of fatalities and injuries. From "Driving to Safety - How Many Miles of Driving Would It Take to Demonstrate Autonomous Vehicle Reliability?"

vmception 6y ago

The fair comparison will show the same thing lol. Each car in with the automated system will provide data to update all the other cars with automated systems. I trust that process way more than individual unconnected human drivers. I don't trust Elon or Tesla corporation to care about human lives but I do trust that it will eventually get better and very quickly. So, thank you for the altruism everyone, it will be fine.

Retric 6y ago

6 is also a total not a rate per year like 38,000. The rate of self driving car deaths is roughly identical to the rate of non self driving car deaths. However, unlike drivers these systems can significantly improve over time.

roland35 6y ago
I think drivers can improve over time as well, especially with assistive technology such as lane departure warning, blind spot detectors, etc becoming more prevalent. Luckily self driving isn't an all or nothing deal!
- Retric 6y ago
  People are already comparing individual models with and without self driving features to adjust for things like visibility. As these cars already have those driver assist features having them become more commonplace isn’t going to change the relaxant statistics. That said, unknown future forms of driver assistance might be relevant, but I would lump that in with better cars.