4 ms·
Wouldn't the apples-to-apples comparison be: how many human drivers have been in the path of a honking fire truck, yet refused to move? Including parked cars an
by gmfawcett 4y ago
Wouldn't the apples-to-apples comparison be: how many human drivers have been in the path of a honking fire truck, yet refused to move? Including parked cars and other "obstacle" cases is imbalanced.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- gojomo 4y agoThat's a fine micro-comparison to consider, alone! But also, what if this is a rare situation where the autonomous car completely fails compared to a human-in-seat? But, even this failure still resolves in under-a-minute. Or, worst-case, approximates the (quite-common) case of a breakdown or human-accident blocking traffic, in a manner that takes tens-of-minutes to resolve. In that case, who cares that we've found one narrow failure? Humans show impatience, poor-judgement, bad exception handling, recklessness, and so forth at ample rates across many road interactions. It's the net total of blockages by autonomous cars, in count & duration & severity, that matters, and specifically whether overall they do better or worse than human drivers. That net comparison is the most important consideration.
- sokoloff 4y agoWhy would the only proper comparison be against a human driven car with a human in it rather than against all human driven car situations (including double parking)?