4 ms·

The analogy with elevators largely doesn't work. In the main the only individuals at risk from an elevator accident are those that chose to enter the elevator,

by Guthur 6y ago

The analogy with elevators largely doesn't work. In the main the only individuals at risk from an elevator accident are those that chose to enter the elevator, this is vastly different for automotive accidents where the individuals affecting by the autonomous car are not those that chose to use one.

aeternum 6y ago
If anything, that should be more of an argument for autonomous cars being allowed once they reach only 1x of the safety of human-driven-vehicles. Almost by definition, more pedestrians will die if we wait for the 4-5x safety threshold proposed in the article.
- studius 6y ago
  The 4-5x is based on statistics of a sample with a high ratio of human drivers to autonomous drivers, if done on the road today. Autonomous won't be known to be N times as safe as human driving until there are sufficient autonomous cars on the road and the varying ratios of autonomous to human drivers have been at equilibrium for a some sufficient amount of time to gather sufficient data to compare to human driving safety statistics. So- 4-5x times is a lie. It could be much more dangerous with only autonomous drivers or much less dangerous. They don't know yet.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > So- 4-5x times is a lie. It could be much more dangerous with only autonomous drivers or much less dangerous. They don't know yet. "could be"? Statistics? Aren't these studies asking about theoretical cars that are by definition a certain amount safer?
    - studius 6y ago
      e.g. "This autonomous car is 4-5x safer than your human-driven car." When people hear numbers like that, they may assume it's based on sufficient data and is true, even if it's theory. But how could it be true or acceptable, given that we're only just starting to have more autonomous vehicles on the road, and the safety could be dependent on the ratio of autonomous vehicles to human drivers?
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        Are you talking about the study, or people claiming that about real cars? The study would need to have a wide variety of safety numbers, and all the cars are theoretical. If 4-5x lines up with a claim about a real car, it's probably a coincidence. Saying there's not enough data about real cars has no bearing on this research at all, unless the abstract is wildly misleading. You replied to someone talking about waiting for autonomous cars to be 4-5x as safe. That means they are waiting for a car to meet that threshold with correct statistics. You can't call out nonexistent statistics as being a lie!
        studius 6y ago
        We have safety statistics on real cars with a minority of autonomous vehicles on the road. What we don't have are adequate safety statistics on autonomous cars on the road with each other and human drivers at various ratios of autonomous cars to human-driven cars. If a study were to be able to propose safety numbers based on the various ratios and various autonomous cars and systems, then that would be adequate, given the theories behind those numbers are well-founded. If you were to say, "This is how it is: given that the ratio of autonomous cars to human-driven cars isn't changing and we expect it to stay the same, we can see that the autonomous cars are 4-5x safer," then I'd not call it a lie. But 4-5x safer without qualifications shows a gross misunderstanding of the importance of the effect of the ratio of autonomous drivers to human drivers; the variation in environment and expected behavior could influence greater or decreased safety, leading false assumption.
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        It would be easy to do a comparison with different ratios, though, so you shouldn't preemptively assume incompetence. And it seems pretty unlikely that increasing the number of autonomous cars will make them signficantly less safe, and that's the only result that would be a problem. Mild fluctuations don't matter on a scale as coarse as "4-5x", and an improvement would be good.
        6y ago
floatingatoll 6y ago
While "those unable to stairs up to floor XYZ" can be proven to be a statistically smaller subgroup than "all possible elevator riders", this argument may not hold much water. If you're a wheelchair user or other less-abled person, and your choice is between stairs and an elevator of any sort, you weren't really given much of a choice in that matter.

by Guthur 6y ago

aeternum 6y ago

If anything, that should be more of an argument for autonomous cars being allowed once they reach only 1x of the safety of human-driven-vehicles. Almost by definition, more pedestrians will die if we wait for the 4-5x safety threshold proposed in the article.

studius 6y ago
The 4-5x is based on statistics of a sample with a high ratio of human drivers to autonomous drivers, if done on the road today. Autonomous won't be known to be N times as safe as human driving until there are sufficient autonomous cars on the road and the varying ratios of autonomous to human drivers have been at equilibrium for a some sufficient amount of time to gather sufficient data to compare to human driving safety statistics. So- 4-5x times is a lie. It could be much more dangerous with only autonomous drivers or much less dangerous. They don't know yet.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > So- 4-5x times is a lie. It could be much more dangerous with only autonomous drivers or much less dangerous. They don't know yet. "could be"? Statistics? Aren't these studies asking about theoretical cars that are by definition a certain amount safer?
  - studius 6y ago
    e.g. "This autonomous car is 4-5x safer than your human-driven car." When people hear numbers like that, they may assume it's based on sufficient data and is true, even if it's theory. But how could it be true or acceptable, given that we're only just starting to have more autonomous vehicles on the road, and the safety could be dependent on the ratio of autonomous vehicles to human drivers?
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      Are you talking about the study, or people claiming that about real cars? The study would need to have a wide variety of safety numbers, and all the cars are theoretical. If 4-5x lines up with a claim about a real car, it's probably a coincidence. Saying there's not enough data about real cars has no bearing on this research at all, unless the abstract is wildly misleading. You replied to someone talking about waiting for autonomous cars to be 4-5x as safe. That means they are waiting for a car to meet that threshold with correct statistics. You can't call out nonexistent statistics as being a lie!
      - studius 6y ago
        We have safety statistics on real cars with a minority of autonomous vehicles on the road. What we don't have are adequate safety statistics on autonomous cars on the road with each other and human drivers at various ratios of autonomous cars to human-driven cars. If a study were to be able to propose safety numbers based on the various ratios and various autonomous cars and systems, then that would be adequate, given the theories behind those numbers are well-founded. If you were to say, "This is how it is: given that the ratio of autonomous cars to human-driven cars isn't changing and we expect it to stay the same, we can see that the autonomous cars are 4-5x safer," then I'd not call it a lie. But 4-5x safer without qualifications shows a gross misunderstanding of the importance of the effect of the ratio of autonomous drivers to human drivers; the variation in environment and expected behavior could influence greater or decreased safety, leading false assumption.
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        It would be easy to do a comparison with different ratios, though, so you shouldn't preemptively assume incompetence. And it seems pretty unlikely that increasing the number of autonomous cars will make them signficantly less safe, and that's the only result that would be a problem. Mild fluctuations don't matter on a scale as coarse as "4-5x", and an improvement would be good.
        6y ago

floatingatoll 6y ago

While "those unable to stairs up to floor XYZ" can be proven to be a statistically smaller subgroup than "all possible elevator riders", this argument may not hold much water. If you're a wheelchair user or other less-abled person, and your choice is between stairs and an elevator of any sort, you weren't really given much of a choice in that matter.