3 ms·
This is good, I had forgotten they released that data, but I was still asking for a lot more. For example, Waymo bucketed accidents by severity and went down to
by Strilanc 6y ago
This is good, I had forgotten they released that data, but I was still asking for a lot more. For example, Waymo bucketed accidents by severity and went down to very low severity (like a pedestrian bumping into the side of a stopped car) whereas on that site Tesla is essentially only reporting airbag deployment counts. (To Tesla's credit, they have more time granularity than Waymo.)
I do think the counterfactual "how many times did the human driver taking over prevent a crash" data is really important to have. In the article, the scary near misses they talked about fell into that category rather than into the "actual airbag deployment" category.
- mlindner 6y ago> I do think the counterfactual "how many times did the human driver taking over prevent a crash" data is really important to have. In the article, the scary near misses they talked about fell into that category rather than into the "actual airbag deployment" category. It would be nice to have however I think it misrepresents. If the end result of having Autopilot on is that the driver, on average, crashes less then it's an improvement, even if the driver has to regularly intervene. What's important is the end effect, not how it happens.
- Strilanc 6y agoSure, but if you want to estimate how far they are from level 4 autonomy then the counterfactual data would be very useful.