5 ms·

How mad would you have to be to get into one of these?

by zabzonk 5y ago

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
At 30mph max in the back seat with the belt on? Not that mad I reckon.
- zabzonk 5y ago
  As opposed to having one with a human driver?
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    I dunno? I guess I'd have to look at the statistics. My sense is that the Waymo vehicles at least are statistically safer than a human driver at these speeds, although not as competent. (I.e. they are less likely to cause an accident, but more likely to encounter a situation they can't handle and get stuck.)
    - asdff 5y ago
      I'd love to see these vehicles handle situations where pedestrians or debris are all over the road. Like in front of a busy bar, construction area, or homeless camp. To the best of my knowledge the environments they've been test driving in have been pretty controlled and orderly and they still manage to find people to run over.
      - EchoAce 5y ago
        Wait, I see them everywhere in SF and in completely random places too…
      - TulliusCicero 5y ago
        You're wrong twice over: Waymo and Cruise have been testing in SF for a long time, and so far neither has run anybody over. Uber ran someone over, it turns out they were shockingly incompetent, and thankfully they don't have an AV program anymore.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > As opposed to having one with a human driver? Given some of my recent Uber drivers in the Bay Area, I reckon a blender would be a safer ride.
raldi 5y ago
This is what people once said about elevators, airplanes, bicycles… How mad would you have to be to keep riding in human-driven taxis after the data shows AVs to be safer?
- asdff 5y ago
  Honestly for the early ones those people were right.
  - raldi 5y ago
    If, after a year of testing, autonomous taxis prove to be exactly half as dangerous as human-driven taxis, would you ride in one?
    - asdff 5y ago
      That would depend on the rigor of the testing being done and where this thing is taking me
      - raldi 5y ago
        Let's say, for the type of journey you need to do (e.g., traveling within a city at <= 30 mph in clear daytime weather), the AVs in question have provided over 100 passenger-years of service, and across that dataset, at-fault crashes are half that of human-driven cars at every level of severity (fender-bender, injury crash, fatality...) At that point, would you choose to ride in one, or a human-driven taxi?
        zabzonk 5y ago
        Do you feel unsafe riding in a human driven taxi? If not (I don't), why would you want to ride in a machine driven one? I simply do not understand the HN desire for sitting in machine driven cars, which have already demonstrated far, far poorer safety than human driven ones. Computers are good at some digital things. They are not good at others.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
They're already successfully deployed in a subset of the Phoenix metro area, so not very mad, probably.

How mad would you have to be to get into one of these?

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

At 30mph max in the back seat with the belt on? Not that mad I reckon.

zabzonk 5y ago
As opposed to having one with a human driver?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  I dunno? I guess I'd have to look at the statistics. My sense is that the Waymo vehicles at least are statistically safer than a human driver at these speeds, although not as competent. (I.e. they are less likely to cause an accident, but more likely to encounter a situation they can't handle and get stuck.)
  - asdff 5y ago
    I'd love to see these vehicles handle situations where pedestrians or debris are all over the road. Like in front of a busy bar, construction area, or homeless camp. To the best of my knowledge the environments they've been test driving in have been pretty controlled and orderly and they still manage to find people to run over.
    - EchoAce 5y ago
      Wait, I see them everywhere in SF and in completely random places too…
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      You're wrong twice over: Waymo and Cruise have been testing in SF for a long time, and so far neither has run anybody over. Uber ran someone over, it turns out they were shockingly incompetent, and thankfully they don't have an AV program anymore.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > As opposed to having one with a human driver? Given some of my recent Uber drivers in the Bay Area, I reckon a blender would be a safer ride.

raldi 5y ago

This is what people once said about elevators, airplanes, bicycles… How mad would you have to be to keep riding in human-driven taxis after the data shows AVs to be safer?

asdff 5y ago
Honestly for the early ones those people were right.
- raldi 5y ago
  If, after a year of testing, autonomous taxis prove to be exactly half as dangerous as human-driven taxis, would you ride in one?
  - asdff 5y ago
    That would depend on the rigor of the testing being done and where this thing is taking me
    - raldi 5y ago
      Let's say, for the type of journey you need to do (e.g., traveling within a city at <= 30 mph in clear daytime weather), the AVs in question have provided over 100 passenger-years of service, and across that dataset, at-fault crashes are half that of human-driven cars at every level of severity (fender-bender, injury crash, fatality...) At that point, would you choose to ride in one, or a human-driven taxi?
      - zabzonk 5y ago
        Do you feel unsafe riding in a human driven taxi? If not (I don't), why would you want to ride in a machine driven one? I simply do not understand the HN desire for sitting in machine driven cars, which have already demonstrated far, far poorer safety than human driven ones. Computers are good at some digital things. They are not good at others.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

They're already successfully deployed in a subset of the Phoenix metro area, so not very mad, probably.