3 ms·

Ok, so. I will say it again to all the people out there who think they can accumulate millions of miles of trials and use statistics to eventually declare a dri

by crocal 6y ago

Ok, so. I will say it again to all the people out there who think they can accumulate millions of miles of trials and use statistics to eventually declare a driverless transportation system is safe: stop. What you are doing is morally and technically wrong. You have to prove safety by design, and this design must be fail-safe. It’s not something you can refactor in software or test on users.

StevenWaterman 6y ago
That's a great ideal to strive for, but it's unrealistic. Driving is unsafe. People die all the time on the roads. The benefits of driverless cars mean that they will never be held to a higher standard than human drivers.
- crocal 6y ago
  Driving is unsafe if humans drive because humans make mistakes. It should not be when machines do. Otherwise, what is the benefits of using them? Driverless cars can, must and will be held to a higher standard. But it is not a lofty ideal, it has been done before. And in the field of transportation. Trains used to crash all the time. Driverless trains don't. Why? Because fail safe systems have been added on railroads that nearly totally prevent this. Don't take my word for it, the bar for rail safety is defined in well documented standards (namely, EN 50129, EN 50126 and EN 50128). It is 10-9 hourly probability of fatal failure. You can also look up "CBTC" on the Internet. This is the reference bar for driverless. The real reason Tesla and friends don't want to go there is because fail-safe systems like a CBTC requires some form of collaboration with devices installed on the ground infrastructure, meaning Tesla should accept to become part of a system, and not "the" system. Obviously a paradigm change for the car industry. How long will the public authority require to understand that they must step in to force a systemic collaboration and standards between infrastructure and cars to ensure driverless safety, I don't know, but I think it's time to call bullshit on the concept that you can have an acceptably safe driverless car system without it.

by crocal 6y ago

StevenWaterman 6y ago

That's a great ideal to strive for, but it's unrealistic. Driving is unsafe. People die all the time on the roads. The benefits of driverless cars mean that they will never be held to a higher standard than human drivers.

crocal 6y ago
Driving is unsafe if humans drive because humans make mistakes. It should not be when machines do. Otherwise, what is the benefits of using them? Driverless cars can, must and will be held to a higher standard. But it is not a lofty ideal, it has been done before. And in the field of transportation. Trains used to crash all the time. Driverless trains don't. Why? Because fail safe systems have been added on railroads that nearly totally prevent this. Don't take my word for it, the bar for rail safety is defined in well documented standards (namely, EN 50129, EN 50126 and EN 50128). It is 10-9 hourly probability of fatal failure. You can also look up "CBTC" on the Internet. This is the reference bar for driverless. The real reason Tesla and friends don't want to go there is because fail-safe systems like a CBTC requires some form of collaboration with devices installed on the ground infrastructure, meaning Tesla should accept to become part of a system, and not "the" system. Obviously a paradigm change for the car industry. How long will the public authority require to understand that they must step in to force a systemic collaboration and standards between infrastructure and cars to ensure driverless safety, I don't know, but I think it's time to call bullshit on the concept that you can have an acceptably safe driverless car system without it.