6 ms·

Anyone know if this has killed someone yet?

by tdeck 6y ago

yannoninator 6y ago
I know for sure Tesla and Uber has. Seems like Comma's product requires your attention through driver monitoring whereas Tesla's product is non existent in this area. And with Uber the driver was distracted. edit: Downvoters, i'm a bit confused here, so Tesla and Uber hasn't killed anybody then?
- slg 6y ago
  Tesla has something like 4 billion miles driven with Autopilot. This apparently has 35 million miles. (It isn't a direct comparison, but the overall rate in the US is around 1 death per 100 million miles driven). Anyone who uses these numbers to even imply this is safer than Tesla knows nothing about statistics. It is way too early to draw any conclusions about Comma's safety. It is also probably too early to even draw statistical conclusions about Tesla's safety.
  - yannoninator 6y ago
    > It is way too early to draw any conclusions about Comma's safety. I definitely would not consider any car with adaptive cruise control without driver monitoring, especially one that touts self driving capabilities.
    - slg 6y ago
      Be my guest if you want to argue the merits of one system over another based on some technical specs or design decisions. My point is that the track records are not long enough to draw any statistical conclusions and the Tesla and Uber have killed people but Comma hasn't argument is at best wildly misleading given the large differences in miles driven.
      - yannoninator 6y ago
        > Anyone know if this has killed someone yet? > ...Tesla and Uber have killed people but Comma hasn't... So no then. This is the correct answer, thank you.
        slg 6y ago
        I just started an aerospace company making planes in my garage. My company has killed less people than either Boeing or Airbus. Does that mean I make safer planes than either of those two companies? A sentence can be technically correct while also being actively misleading.
        yannoninator 6y ago
        > A sentence can be technically correct while also being actively misleading. So we can say no deaths by comma, until proven otherwise. Definitely not misleading.
        ncallaway 6y ago
        This seems to deliberately ignore the pretty reasonable argument being made. If you can't address the argument the other person makes, it seems like the more reasonable thing to do is acknowledge that fact, rather than just ignore their point entirely.
        yannoninator 6y ago
        Everything else that person said was irrelevant to this thread. I'm looking for straight answers, not going around points, but getting straight to them. > ...it seems like the more reasonable thing to do is acknowledge that fact, rather than just ignore their point entirely. The fact that Tesla and Uber has more deaths than Comma? That I can agree with.
- easton 6y ago
  Doesn't Tesla check to make sure your hands are on the wheel (as does Honda and I'm sure the rest of the OEM lane-assist products)
  - LegitShady 6y ago
    Comma has a driver facing camera doing driver monitoring
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- hbarka 6y ago
  Tesla’s product also requires driver monitoring. They explicitly say so, so your statement is clearly false. Not excusing Tesla’s faults but the volume of Tesla’s cars on the road compared to Comma’s would probably explain the difference in statistics.
  - yannoninator 6y ago
    > Tesla’s product also requires driver monitoring. They explicitly say so, so your statement is clearly false. Please state your evidence on this. Do they have a powerful driver monitoring system already? Is it being used?
    - odysseythrwtime 6y ago
      They do. You have to touch the steering wheel everything couple minutes to prove you are focused. Video: https://youtu.be/QNadmzp_9Ag?t=292 https://youtu.be/QNadmzp_9Ag?t=292
      - yannoninator 6y ago
        Great, by definition a drunk or sleepy person can have their hands on the wheel to prove they are focused. This system is very powerful indeed.
  - chairmanwow1 6y ago
    Tesla has had “driver monitoring” in that you had to apply some torque to the wheel, while the comma does gaze detection to make sure you aren’t watching a movie or sleeping. AFAIK Tesla is adding driver monitoring cameras.
    - brianwawok 6y ago
      Telsa has cameras in the cabin for all cars now, but have never stated that they are going to enable them for driver monitoring purposes. (But their code has flags like driver_eyes_up and drivers_eye_down, so at least it's on their mind...)
madamelic 6y ago
Human life is sacred. Absolutely. but. If we are concerned with cars killing people, we should get rid of cars. This FUD around self-driving == killing people will, in the long-term, cause more deaths than the handful of sensationalized stories about self-driving deaths. The only reason those car crashes get national attention is because they were self-driving. In every other way they are boring. Bicyclists hit by car: every day. Man killed by semi: every day. etc. Do you think you'd see a bunch of FUD about a 2021 manually-driven Chevy mystery car getting in a minor fenderbender and equating it with the safety of the entire car industry? No. But: https://insideevs.com/news/333516/self-driving-chevrolet-bolt-reportedly-involved-in-accident-in-san-francisco/ https://insideevs.com/news/333516/self-driving-chevrolet-bol...
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  I'm concerned about being the donor of the red ink the subsequent regulation gets written in.
- onion2k 6y ago
  Does this mean that if I build an AI controlled gun turret to shoot people who walk across my lawn it shouldn't be news when it kills someone because people get shot by other people quite regularly? In my opinion the application of technology, and (more importantly) the delegation of human responsibility to a computer, should be something that's part of the national conversation.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Not the same. The people wouldn’t’ve gotten shot in the first place. The idea with self driving is that it’s safer than a human, not that people will die regardless. So in your scenario, unless you’re just shooting everyone that walks by for some weird reason, and your turret is less accurate, it’s not the same. Not arguing for either side.
- akira2501 6y ago
  > sensationalized stories about self-driving deaths. I disagree that they're sensationalized. Self-driving systems are designed to improve user safety, but when they end up making mistakes that human drivers _wouldn't_ make then it's appropriate to thoroughly investigate these systems. > is because they were self-driving. Well, precisely. We tolerate driving accidents because we know that the mobility that cars provide end up offering far more value to the world than the occasional accidents that we end up tolerating. What's the trade with self-driving cars? What is the technology enabling that is worth the possible additional risks? > car getting in a minor fenderbender and equating it with the safety of the entire car industry? I don't think that comparison offers anything interesting, and it ignores the long and storied history of improving automobile safety. Look into Ralph Naders "Unsafe At Any Speed" if you really want to see people looking at "regular" accidents and deciding there was something to be fixed.
cyrux004 6y ago
You mean the car gets in crashes when Toyota Lane tracing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVyRsdILbRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVyRsdILbRw) or honda lane assist(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpgYCC8zG84 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpgYCC8zG84) or the nissan propilot system (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFJ_4uEG6Og https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFJ_4uEG6Og) is enabled. I am sure there are a lot of cases. Just have to ask these car companies to release data
tim333 6y ago
I don't think it has yet. It's also one of the safer assist systems because it observes the drivers eyes to check they are looking where they are going, unlike Tesla say.

Anyone know if this has killed someone yet?

by tdeck 6y ago

Anyone know if this has killed someone yet?

I know for sure Tesla and Uber has. Seems like Comma's product requires your attention through driver monitoring whereas Tesla's product is non existent in this area. And with Uber the driver was distracted. edit: Downvoters, i'm a bit confused here, so Tesla and Uber hasn't killed anybody then?

slg 6y ago
Tesla has something like 4 billion miles driven with Autopilot. This apparently has 35 million miles. (It isn't a direct comparison, but the overall rate in the US is around 1 death per 100 million miles driven). Anyone who uses these numbers to even imply this is safer than Tesla knows nothing about statistics. It is way too early to draw any conclusions about Comma's safety. It is also probably too early to even draw statistical conclusions about Tesla's safety.
- yannoninator 6y ago
  > It is way too early to draw any conclusions about Comma's safety. I definitely would not consider any car with adaptive cruise control without driver monitoring, especially one that touts self driving capabilities.
  - slg 6y ago
    Be my guest if you want to argue the merits of one system over another based on some technical specs or design decisions. My point is that the track records are not long enough to draw any statistical conclusions and the Tesla and Uber have killed people but Comma hasn't argument is at best wildly misleading given the large differences in miles driven.
    - yannoninator 6y ago
      > Anyone know if this has killed someone yet? > ...Tesla and Uber have killed people but Comma hasn't... So no then. This is the correct answer, thank you.
      - slg 6y ago
        I just started an aerospace company making planes in my garage. My company has killed less people than either Boeing or Airbus. Does that mean I make safer planes than either of those two companies? A sentence can be technically correct while also being actively misleading.
        yannoninator 6y ago
        > A sentence can be technically correct while also being actively misleading. So we can say no deaths by comma, until proven otherwise. Definitely not misleading.
      - ncallaway 6y ago
        This seems to deliberately ignore the pretty reasonable argument being made. If you can't address the argument the other person makes, it seems like the more reasonable thing to do is acknowledge that fact, rather than just ignore their point entirely.
        yannoninator 6y ago
        Everything else that person said was irrelevant to this thread. I'm looking for straight answers, not going around points, but getting straight to them. > ...it seems like the more reasonable thing to do is acknowledge that fact, rather than just ignore their point entirely. The fact that Tesla and Uber has more deaths than Comma? That I can agree with.
easton 6y ago
Doesn't Tesla check to make sure your hands are on the wheel (as does Honda and I'm sure the rest of the OEM lane-assist products)
- LegitShady 6y ago
  Comma has a driver facing camera doing driver monitoring
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
hbarka 6y ago
Tesla’s product also requires driver monitoring. They explicitly say so, so your statement is clearly false. Not excusing Tesla’s faults but the volume of Tesla’s cars on the road compared to Comma’s would probably explain the difference in statistics.
- yannoninator 6y ago
  > Tesla’s product also requires driver monitoring. They explicitly say so, so your statement is clearly false. Please state your evidence on this. Do they have a powerful driver monitoring system already? Is it being used?
  - odysseythrwtime 6y ago
    They do. You have to touch the steering wheel everything couple minutes to prove you are focused. Video: https://youtu.be/QNadmzp_9Ag?t=292 https://youtu.be/QNadmzp_9Ag?t=292
    - yannoninator 6y ago
      Great, by definition a drunk or sleepy person can have their hands on the wheel to prove they are focused. This system is very powerful indeed.
- chairmanwow1 6y ago
  Tesla has had “driver monitoring” in that you had to apply some torque to the wheel, while the comma does gaze detection to make sure you aren’t watching a movie or sleeping. AFAIK Tesla is adding driver monitoring cameras.
  - brianwawok 6y ago
    Telsa has cameras in the cabin for all cars now, but have never stated that they are going to enable them for driver monitoring purposes. (But their code has flags like driver_eyes_up and drivers_eye_down, so at least it's on their mind...)

madamelic 6y ago

Human life is sacred. Absolutely. but. If we are concerned with cars killing people, we should get rid of cars. This FUD around self-driving == killing people will, in the long-term, cause more deaths than the handful of sensationalized stories about self-driving deaths. The only reason those car crashes get national attention is because they were self-driving. In every other way they are boring. Bicyclists hit by car: every day. Man killed by semi: every day. etc. Do you think you'd see a bunch of FUD about a 2021 manually-driven Chevy mystery car getting in a minor fenderbender and equating it with the safety of the entire car industry? No. But: https://insideevs.com/news/333516/self-driving-chevrolet-bolt-reportedly-involved-in-accident-in-san-francisco/ https://insideevs.com/news/333516/self-driving-chevrolet-bol...

TameAntelope 6y ago
I'm concerned about being the donor of the red ink the subsequent regulation gets written in.
onion2k 6y ago
Does this mean that if I build an AI controlled gun turret to shoot people who walk across my lawn it shouldn't be news when it kills someone because people get shot by other people quite regularly? In my opinion the application of technology, and (more importantly) the delegation of human responsibility to a computer, should be something that's part of the national conversation.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  Not the same. The people wouldn’t’ve gotten shot in the first place. The idea with self driving is that it’s safer than a human, not that people will die regardless. So in your scenario, unless you’re just shooting everyone that walks by for some weird reason, and your turret is less accurate, it’s not the same. Not arguing for either side.
akira2501 6y ago
> sensationalized stories about self-driving deaths. I disagree that they're sensationalized. Self-driving systems are designed to improve user safety, but when they end up making mistakes that human drivers _wouldn't_ make then it's appropriate to thoroughly investigate these systems. > is because they were self-driving. Well, precisely. We tolerate driving accidents because we know that the mobility that cars provide end up offering far more value to the world than the occasional accidents that we end up tolerating. What's the trade with self-driving cars? What is the technology enabling that is worth the possible additional risks? > car getting in a minor fenderbender and equating it with the safety of the entire car industry? I don't think that comparison offers anything interesting, and it ignores the long and storied history of improving automobile safety. Look into Ralph Naders "Unsafe At Any Speed" if you really want to see people looking at "regular" accidents and deciding there was something to be fixed.

cyrux004 6y ago

You mean the car gets in crashes when Toyota Lane tracing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVyRsdILbRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVyRsdILbRw) or honda lane assist(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpgYCC8zG84 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpgYCC8zG84) or the nissan propilot system (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFJ_4uEG6Og https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFJ_4uEG6Og) is enabled. I am sure there are a lot of cases. Just have to ask these car companies to release data

tim333 6y ago

I don't think it has yet. It's also one of the safer assist systems because it observes the drivers eyes to check they are looking where they are going, unlike Tesla say.