13 ms·

It's great to see actual data reported since so many AV companies hide it behind as many walls and fluffy press releases as possible. I think this speaks to th

It's great to see actual data reported since so many AV companies hide it behind as many walls and fluffy press releases as possible. I think this speaks to the maturity of Waymo's system at this point. Two key paragraphs for me personally: "The most common type of crash involving Waymo’s vehicles was rear-end collisions. Waymo said it was involved in 14 actual and two simulated fender-benders, and in all but one, the other vehicle was the one doing the rear-ending." -> This is consistent with previous reports from Waymo. If one of their vehicles gets in an accident, it's extremely likely that the other (human) driver was at fault. Of course, this is somewhat compounded by the fact that Waymo vehicles actually try to follow road laws like attempting to stop for yellow lights and making full stops at stopsigns, which human drivers often don't do (and may not expect other vehicles to do). "The one incident where Waymo rear-ended another vehicle was in simulation: the company determined that the AV would have rear-ended another car that swerved in front of it and then braked hard despite a lack of obstruction ahead — which the company says was “consistent with antagonistic motive.” (There have been dozens of reports of Waymo’s autonomous vehicles being harassed by other drivers, including attempts to run them off the road.)" -> This doesn't surprise me really, but is still pretty sad. Many drivers are just assholes and AVs are going to be an easy target for such people.

xxpor 6y ago
>which human drivers often don't do (and may not expect other vehicles to do). This presents an interesting problem. It's obviously easier to program something to follow the law, given it's unambiguous. But the question is what are we optimizing for? The fewest crashes? That's probably the right thing to do given crashes are bad. In that case, isn't it better to do what people would expect other cars to do? But are Waymo constrained by the fact that if a self-driving car is programmed to get a ticket they could be held liable? Probably. I think the moral side of self-driving cars is just as hard or a harder problem than the technical side, and we haven't made the decisions as a society that we need to. If the government doesn't step up soon to lay out how this is going to work, the corporations will. And guess what: they'll choose whatever costs them the least amount of money. Not what's best for society.
- bradstewart 6y ago
  > isn't it better to do what people would expect other cars to do? You--a human driver--have no idea what the other cars will do either. Some people run yellows, some people don't. The only reasonable thing to assume the other car to do is follow the law, but be prepared for the unexpected. Unless Waymo cars are doing something unnatural like braking significantly harder or faster than a human would, the Waymo car is not at fault for being rear-ended. Once we pass ethical muster (meaning don't ship knowingly buggy code, don't sell cars you expect to crash a lot, etc), I have a hard time seeing what the moral issues are here.
  - toast0 6y ago
    I haven't gone through this article, but I've read several incident reports from testing in Mountain View and seen several test vehicles driving around in that area. Waymo cars are often unnaturally cautious, which is usually a factor when they get rear-ended. Ex: vehicle behind expected waymo car to turn left when there was an opening large enough for it, but it didn't. These are probably worse because there's a safety driver who is probably actively engaged. If you can see the (apparent) driver looks actively engaged, you'll expect them to see the gap, and go for it. If the car had no one in the driver seat (or they were looking at screens/passengers), you might be more cautious. Added: of course, that doesn't mean it's waymo's responsibility; this type of collision occurs with human drivers too, and it's the driver to the rear's fault, but either driver could have avoided the error: the front driver by going when it was safe to do so, as expected; and the rear driver by waiting to confirm the front driver actually went. Sometimes it's tricky because the front driver releases the brakes and then reapplies them; the rear driver saw the brake lights turn off and moves forward while watching oncoming traffic, but doesn't see the brakes were reapplied. Added later: I read the verge article. It sounds like Waymo is working on not getting rear-ended, so they acknowledge there are things they can do (and that, in many cases, the safety driver was able to do).
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - 6y ago
inlined 6y ago
I can’t imagine driving recklessly at a camera-covered car. Seems like Waymo could/should just forward videos of clearly trying to cause an accident to the local police
- uluyol 6y ago
  If they did this I think it would a massive PR issue. People would probably start destroying Waymo cars if this happened. I sure wouldn't be happy if self-driving cars became mass surveillance tools.
  - junipertea 6y ago
    Dashboard cameras are a thing already.
    - EGreg 6y ago
      Actually cameras are everywhere all the time already, the question is who can access the footage http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=169 http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=169
  - ceph_ 6y ago
    > If they did this I think it would a massive PR issue. Strongly disagree. There amount of contempt people have for asshole drivers is massive. Videos of people driving like assholes and getting caught is a mainstay of subreddits like http://old.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars http://old.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars and /r/InstantKarma
    - myself248 6y ago
      also nominating /r/ConvenientCop
  - randomdude402 6y ago
    I'm not so sure about that. a lot of neighborhoods are absolutely ecstatic that everybody is pumping doorbell camera data into the cloud. I see people practically begging one another on facebook to upload video about the mildest of complaints.
me_me_me 6y ago
> -> This doesn't surprise me really, but is still pretty sad. Many drivers are just assholes and AVs are going to be an easy target for such people. Whoa Whoa. We dont have go as far as calling them people.
conanbatt 6y ago
The animals are the people that made rules that people don't want to follow.
dheera 6y ago
Interestingly I once had a near-accident with a Waymo car because I had a stop sign and thought it was a 4-way stop (which would mean I got to go first since I stopped first), but it was only a 2-way stop, and the Waymo had right of way. That's right, in California, 4-way stops aren't [edit: consistently] labelled 4-way, so when you come up to an intersection with a stop sign you need to peek around at the transverse road (sometimes in the dark) to see whether or not they also have a stop sign to know whether it's 2-way or 4-way. All while looking out for cars on both sides. The Waymo car stopped just in time and there was no accident. Not sure if this was because of the safety driver or because its algorithm had seen and extrapolated my car's motion and actively avoided the collision. (Or if they are advanced enough, maybe they have mapped out all the stop signs in California and have labelled all the intersections that are 2-way stops in which a driver could accidentally think it's 4-way, and anticipate the possibility of an accident in advance at these dangerous intersections. I doubt that though.)
- denlekke 6y ago
  anecdotally, all the 4 way stops I encounter in day to day driving in the SF Bay area are labelled as 4 way or all way
  - dheera 6y ago
    I'm in the bay area and adecnotally it has been very inconsistent for me. Here are a few I dug up in just a few minutes of 4-way stops without 4-way labels. This has led me to mostly disregard the absence of a 4-way label as a source of information. San Francisco https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7253706,-122.4072718,3a,75y,103.19h,83.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skJk9td6MYU6CZOR4s8uFXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7253706,-122.4072718,3a,75y,... Stanford https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4342864,-122.1680113,3a,75y,49.02h,90.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSRKvv6W-XAO-Ab-X3ZJFHQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4342864,-122.1680113,3a,75y,... Palo Alto https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4671732,-122.1480907,3a,90y,11.17h,85.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgEeaL-1mnuIwIrK1QhJNVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4671732,-122.1480907,3a,90y,... Los Altos https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3977786,-122.1162461,3a,75y,198.2h,86.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6MYCs9nM3JkgqPRTHARQBA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3977786,-122.1162461,3a,75y,... San Jose https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3313026,-121.8797736,3a,75y,166.18h,81.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4-9VlO2eDAz4pkyMMqKT3g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3313026,-121.8797736,3a,75y,...
ummonk 6y ago
I mean given how much unusual braking Waymo cars do, causing human drivers to rear-end them, I wouldn't have any sympathy for them if an antagonistic driver succeeds in brake-checking a Waymo car and causing a collision.
- standardUser 6y ago
  It is the responsibility of the driver to not hit cars in front of them. Doesn't matter if it's a normal stop light, or a deer crosses the road, or the car decided to break randomly just for fun. In every case, aside from cutting someone off, the driver should maintain the proper distance and speed to prevent a rear end collision.
rodgerd 6y ago
> -> This doesn't surprise me really, but is still pretty sad. Many drivers are just assholes and AVs are going to be an easy target for such people. I would cheerfully bet good money that the Venn diagram of "people fucking with Waymo cars" and "people who run cyclists off the road" is close to a circle.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
caturopath 6y ago
> This is consistent with previous reports from Waymo. If one of their vehicles gets in an accident, it's extremely likely that the other (human) driver was at fault. It looks like in 2018 Arizona had 1.4 crashes per million miles https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/news/2018-Crash-Facts.pdf https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/news/2018-Crash-Facts.... and Waymo released data that they had 2.9 crashes per million miles, over twice as many. 7.7 if they hadn't had human intervention, almost at another order of magnitude than the average driver. That's rough. I'm really not interested if the other driver is almost always at fault, that's not the number to get down. Their mid-term goal seems to be to drive on public roads with mostly human drivers, so they need to get better results. If they're getting bad results over lots of data, it's not just bad luck: the way they're driving is causing more crashes, even if they're not at fault. Additionally, fault classification is worrisome, since there is the potential for bias. Various factors might make this remark wrong - "Crashes per mile" isn't the right metric: injury, fatality, or similar should replace or augment it. - I compared data from Arizona to data from Waymo's zone, which might be more crashy. - Crashes in the doc I linked underestimate total crashes, since many go unreported. - I am not comparing apples-to-apples -- new commercial minivans might be far more crash-prone than the average vehicle.
- marwatk 6y ago
  This report [1] seems to imply that around 35% of minor crashes aren't reported which is significant, but not enough by itself to move the needle too much. Another factor is highway vs surface miles. Highway miles would seem significantly safer on a per-mile basis (but I can't find any numbers to back that up), and with Waymo excluding highways for now they'd be all surface miles. I can't find data that breaks down crash rate by street type, but I suspect surface traffic has a much higher crash rate than highway miles. [1] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812183 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
  - dmoy 6y ago
    Freeway-style fatality rates tend to be way lower per vehicle mile, yes. Freeway is about 0.3 per 100 million, and the aggregate total is 3x higher than that around 1-1.2 per 100 million.
in3d 6y ago
Sometimes it's possible to stop for a yellow light by braking very hard. I hope Waymo cars don't this when they detect cars behind them, it's unsafe.
draw_down 6y ago
Yeah, well, forgive me if I tend to lend human drivers the benefit of the doubt when conflicts arise with auto-driving vehicles, for a while. If the model doesn't reflect how other drivers drive, is that the drivers' fault or the model's fault?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ugh123 6y ago
I'd expect Waymo and competitors are anticipating these kinds of incidents and will try to capture as much live footage from several angles.
mindvirus 6y ago
I wonder how they'll deal with badly behaved pedestrians, especially in denser cities. As self driving cars take over, you could imagine pedestrians knowing that the cars won't hit them (and nobody will get out and yell), and walking into traffic. On some cases that's probably fine - why have lights anymore in a sparse suburb? In a place like NYC though I could see traffic just stopping.
- Eridrus 6y ago
  We should just ban cars in the parts of NYC where this a concern and give the streets back to pedestrians.
r00fus 6y ago
So I’ve almost reared ended a WayMo car in MV a few years ago because the damn thing near-stopped due to tree shadows. I wonder how many were caused by aberrant behaviorism the part of the waymo vehicle...
- pishpash 6y ago
  This, just because you're the one rear-ended doesn't mean you bear no fault, although you have some presumptions in your favor. Indeed, the quotation itself plainly argues for front-vehicle "antagonistic motive" in the one case disfavoring Waymo.
an_opabinia 6y ago
Another interpretation is that the digerati are wrong, crashes don't really matter that much. Nobody gives a fuck who is at fault as long as someone pays. End of story. Waymo could be 100x as crashy. So what. Vehicles were much more dangerous in the past, and yet people still drove them. Fatal accidents happen all the time. People still drive. There's a lot of media and PR handwringing over safety. It doesn't matter. People fall asleep in their moving Teslas. (1) Traffic is horrible, commuting is horrible, nobody wants to be doing that crap. (1) https://www.vice.com/en/article/a353eb/drivers-keep-falling-asleep-in-moving-teslas https://www.vice.com/en/article/a353eb/drivers-keep-falling-...
- Eridrus 6y ago
  I broadly agree that a lot of drivers would accept the risk, but there is reasonable concern for everyone outside the vehicle, which translates to a reasonable concern about regulation. And unless progress here has stalled, waiting a few more years for a safer version that doesn't have this tradeoff.
grogenaut 6y ago
14 crashes and "by far the most" are basically meaningless here

xxpor 6y ago

>which human drivers often don't do (and may not expect other vehicles to do). This presents an interesting problem. It's obviously easier to program something to follow the law, given it's unambiguous. But the question is what are we optimizing for? The fewest crashes? That's probably the right thing to do given crashes are bad. In that case, isn't it better to do what people would expect other cars to do? But are Waymo constrained by the fact that if a self-driving car is programmed to get a ticket they could be held liable? Probably. I think the moral side of self-driving cars is just as hard or a harder problem than the technical side, and we haven't made the decisions as a society that we need to. If the government doesn't step up soon to lay out how this is going to work, the corporations will. And guess what: they'll choose whatever costs them the least amount of money. Not what's best for society.

bradstewart 6y ago
> isn't it better to do what people would expect other cars to do? You--a human driver--have no idea what the other cars will do either. Some people run yellows, some people don't. The only reasonable thing to assume the other car to do is follow the law, but be prepared for the unexpected. Unless Waymo cars are doing something unnatural like braking significantly harder or faster than a human would, the Waymo car is not at fault for being rear-ended. Once we pass ethical muster (meaning don't ship knowingly buggy code, don't sell cars you expect to crash a lot, etc), I have a hard time seeing what the moral issues are here.
- toast0 6y ago
  I haven't gone through this article, but I've read several incident reports from testing in Mountain View and seen several test vehicles driving around in that area. Waymo cars are often unnaturally cautious, which is usually a factor when they get rear-ended. Ex: vehicle behind expected waymo car to turn left when there was an opening large enough for it, but it didn't. These are probably worse because there's a safety driver who is probably actively engaged. If you can see the (apparent) driver looks actively engaged, you'll expect them to see the gap, and go for it. If the car had no one in the driver seat (or they were looking at screens/passengers), you might be more cautious. Added: of course, that doesn't mean it's waymo's responsibility; this type of collision occurs with human drivers too, and it's the driver to the rear's fault, but either driver could have avoided the error: the front driver by going when it was safe to do so, as expected; and the rear driver by waiting to confirm the front driver actually went. Sometimes it's tricky because the front driver releases the brakes and then reapplies them; the rear driver saw the brake lights turn off and moves forward while watching oncoming traffic, but doesn't see the brakes were reapplied. Added later: I read the verge article. It sounds like Waymo is working on not getting rear-ended, so they acknowledge there are things they can do (and that, in many cases, the safety driver was able to do).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - 6y ago

inlined 6y ago

I can’t imagine driving recklessly at a camera-covered car. Seems like Waymo could/should just forward videos of clearly trying to cause an accident to the local police

uluyol 6y ago
If they did this I think it would a massive PR issue. People would probably start destroying Waymo cars if this happened. I sure wouldn't be happy if self-driving cars became mass surveillance tools.
- junipertea 6y ago
  Dashboard cameras are a thing already.
  - EGreg 6y ago
    Actually cameras are everywhere all the time already, the question is who can access the footage http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=169 http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=169
- ceph_ 6y ago
  > If they did this I think it would a massive PR issue. Strongly disagree. There amount of contempt people have for asshole drivers is massive. Videos of people driving like assholes and getting caught is a mainstay of subreddits like http://old.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars http://old.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars and /r/InstantKarma
  - myself248 6y ago
    also nominating /r/ConvenientCop
- randomdude402 6y ago
  I'm not so sure about that. a lot of neighborhoods are absolutely ecstatic that everybody is pumping doorbell camera data into the cloud. I see people practically begging one another on facebook to upload video about the mildest of complaints.

me_me_me 6y ago

> -> This doesn't surprise me really, but is still pretty sad. Many drivers are just assholes and AVs are going to be an easy target for such people. Whoa Whoa. We dont have go as far as calling them people.

conanbatt 6y ago

The animals are the people that made rules that people don't want to follow.

dheera 6y ago

Interestingly I once had a near-accident with a Waymo car because I had a stop sign and thought it was a 4-way stop (which would mean I got to go first since I stopped first), but it was only a 2-way stop, and the Waymo had right of way. That's right, in California, 4-way stops aren't [edit: consistently] labelled 4-way, so when you come up to an intersection with a stop sign you need to peek around at the transverse road (sometimes in the dark) to see whether or not they also have a stop sign to know whether it's 2-way or 4-way. All while looking out for cars on both sides. The Waymo car stopped just in time and there was no accident. Not sure if this was because of the safety driver or because its algorithm had seen and extrapolated my car's motion and actively avoided the collision. (Or if they are advanced enough, maybe they have mapped out all the stop signs in California and have labelled all the intersections that are 2-way stops in which a driver could accidentally think it's 4-way, and anticipate the possibility of an accident in advance at these dangerous intersections. I doubt that though.)

denlekke 6y ago
anecdotally, all the 4 way stops I encounter in day to day driving in the SF Bay area are labelled as 4 way or all way
- dheera 6y ago
  I'm in the bay area and adecnotally it has been very inconsistent for me. Here are a few I dug up in just a few minutes of 4-way stops without 4-way labels. This has led me to mostly disregard the absence of a 4-way label as a source of information. San Francisco https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7253706,-122.4072718,3a,75y,103.19h,83.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skJk9td6MYU6CZOR4s8uFXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7253706,-122.4072718,3a,75y,... Stanford https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4342864,-122.1680113,3a,75y,49.02h,90.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSRKvv6W-XAO-Ab-X3ZJFHQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4342864,-122.1680113,3a,75y,... Palo Alto https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4671732,-122.1480907,3a,90y,11.17h,85.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgEeaL-1mnuIwIrK1QhJNVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4671732,-122.1480907,3a,90y,... Los Altos https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3977786,-122.1162461,3a,75y,198.2h,86.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6MYCs9nM3JkgqPRTHARQBA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3977786,-122.1162461,3a,75y,... San Jose https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3313026,-121.8797736,3a,75y,166.18h,81.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4-9VlO2eDAz4pkyMMqKT3g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3313026,-121.8797736,3a,75y,...

ummonk 6y ago

I mean given how much unusual braking Waymo cars do, causing human drivers to rear-end them, I wouldn't have any sympathy for them if an antagonistic driver succeeds in brake-checking a Waymo car and causing a collision.

standardUser 6y ago
It is the responsibility of the driver to not hit cars in front of them. Doesn't matter if it's a normal stop light, or a deer crosses the road, or the car decided to break randomly just for fun. In every case, aside from cutting someone off, the driver should maintain the proper distance and speed to prevent a rear end collision.

rodgerd 6y ago

> -> This doesn't surprise me really, but is still pretty sad. Many drivers are just assholes and AVs are going to be an easy target for such people. I would cheerfully bet good money that the Venn diagram of "people fucking with Waymo cars" and "people who run cyclists off the road" is close to a circle.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

caturopath 6y ago

> This is consistent with previous reports from Waymo. If one of their vehicles gets in an accident, it's extremely likely that the other (human) driver was at fault. It looks like in 2018 Arizona had 1.4 crashes per million miles https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/news/2018-Crash-Facts.pdf https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/news/2018-Crash-Facts.... and Waymo released data that they had 2.9 crashes per million miles, over twice as many. 7.7 if they hadn't had human intervention, almost at another order of magnitude than the average driver. That's rough. I'm really not interested if the other driver is almost always at fault, that's not the number to get down. Their mid-term goal seems to be to drive on public roads with mostly human drivers, so they need to get better results. If they're getting bad results over lots of data, it's not just bad luck: the way they're driving is causing more crashes, even if they're not at fault. Additionally, fault classification is worrisome, since there is the potential for bias. Various factors might make this remark wrong - "Crashes per mile" isn't the right metric: injury, fatality, or similar should replace or augment it. - I compared data from Arizona to data from Waymo's zone, which might be more crashy. - Crashes in the doc I linked underestimate total crashes, since many go unreported. - I am not comparing apples-to-apples -- new commercial minivans might be far more crash-prone than the average vehicle.

marwatk 6y ago
This report [1] seems to imply that around 35% of minor crashes aren't reported which is significant, but not enough by itself to move the needle too much. Another factor is highway vs surface miles. Highway miles would seem significantly safer on a per-mile basis (but I can't find any numbers to back that up), and with Waymo excluding highways for now they'd be all surface miles. I can't find data that breaks down crash rate by street type, but I suspect surface traffic has a much higher crash rate than highway miles. [1] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812183 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
- dmoy 6y ago
  Freeway-style fatality rates tend to be way lower per vehicle mile, yes. Freeway is about 0.3 per 100 million, and the aggregate total is 3x higher than that around 1-1.2 per 100 million.

in3d 6y ago

Sometimes it's possible to stop for a yellow light by braking very hard. I hope Waymo cars don't this when they detect cars behind them, it's unsafe.

draw_down 6y ago

Yeah, well, forgive me if I tend to lend human drivers the benefit of the doubt when conflicts arise with auto-driving vehicles, for a while. If the model doesn't reflect how other drivers drive, is that the drivers' fault or the model's fault?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ugh123 6y ago

I'd expect Waymo and competitors are anticipating these kinds of incidents and will try to capture as much live footage from several angles.

mindvirus 6y ago

I wonder how they'll deal with badly behaved pedestrians, especially in denser cities. As self driving cars take over, you could imagine pedestrians knowing that the cars won't hit them (and nobody will get out and yell), and walking into traffic. On some cases that's probably fine - why have lights anymore in a sparse suburb? In a place like NYC though I could see traffic just stopping.

Eridrus 6y ago
We should just ban cars in the parts of NYC where this a concern and give the streets back to pedestrians.

r00fus 6y ago

So I’ve almost reared ended a WayMo car in MV a few years ago because the damn thing near-stopped due to tree shadows. I wonder how many were caused by aberrant behaviorism the part of the waymo vehicle...

pishpash 6y ago
This, just because you're the one rear-ended doesn't mean you bear no fault, although you have some presumptions in your favor. Indeed, the quotation itself plainly argues for front-vehicle "antagonistic motive" in the one case disfavoring Waymo.

an_opabinia 6y ago

Another interpretation is that the digerati are wrong, crashes don't really matter that much. Nobody gives a fuck who is at fault as long as someone pays. End of story. Waymo could be 100x as crashy. So what. Vehicles were much more dangerous in the past, and yet people still drove them. Fatal accidents happen all the time. People still drive. There's a lot of media and PR handwringing over safety. It doesn't matter. People fall asleep in their moving Teslas. (1) Traffic is horrible, commuting is horrible, nobody wants to be doing that crap. (1) https://www.vice.com/en/article/a353eb/drivers-keep-falling-asleep-in-moving-teslas https://www.vice.com/en/article/a353eb/drivers-keep-falling-...

Eridrus 6y ago
I broadly agree that a lot of drivers would accept the risk, but there is reasonable concern for everyone outside the vehicle, which translates to a reasonable concern about regulation. And unless progress here has stalled, waiting a few more years for a safer version that doesn't have this tradeoff.

grogenaut 6y ago

14 crashes and "by far the most" are basically meaningless here