3 ms·

That's a very clean way of dividing up the data, I'd be curious about those figures too. I was going to question the relevance of comparing tech-caused acciden

That's a very clean way of dividing up the data, I'd be curious about those figures too. I was going to question the relevance of comparing tech-caused accidents with human-caused accidents since, despite the growing evidence that tech is the better driver under normal circumstances, we have this cognitive bias around lower perceived safety when someone/something else is driving. People just want to feel in control, even though they're more likely to crash, and my guess is that this will slow down adoption of self-driving technology more than necessary. But then I realized that evidence like this would probably be the best argument no matter what, so in the end, it makes even more sense to compare those numbers!

paulryanrogers 4y ago
Humans have a fatal crash about once per million miles. Self Driving is complicated by the fact that humans can intervene. Human drivers have no such backup. So comparison may require compensating for the fact that automated drivers have that human backup preventing them from otherwise killing more people.
- Volundr 4y ago
  > Self Driving is complicated by the fact that humans can intervene. And that self driving "opts out" of any conditions it finds too challenging, requiring the human to take control. Meaning self driving has more miles in relatively safe conditions.
  - cestith 4y ago
    You and parent make very good points. These would still be relevant if we had all the data. It'd be nice to have the data and this context for it.
- pintxo 4y ago
  Aren’t level 2 systems supposed to be exactly this backup for humans?
- cestith 4y ago
  Yes, that's important to keep in mind. If the overall system of auto driving plus human turns out to be safer than a human alone, that could still be a good thing. I'd also like to see data, come to think of it, for systems with the safety systems that aren't self driving like lane departure warnings, front and rear collision warnings, adaptive cruise control, automatic braking, driver awareness warnings, head position warnings, directional headlights, night-vision HUDs, and such.

paulryanrogers 4y ago

Humans have a fatal crash about once per million miles. Self Driving is complicated by the fact that humans can intervene. Human drivers have no such backup. So comparison may require compensating for the fact that automated drivers have that human backup preventing them from otherwise killing more people.

Volundr 4y ago
> Self Driving is complicated by the fact that humans can intervene. And that self driving "opts out" of any conditions it finds too challenging, requiring the human to take control. Meaning self driving has more miles in relatively safe conditions.
- cestith 4y ago
  You and parent make very good points. These would still be relevant if we had all the data. It'd be nice to have the data and this context for it.
pintxo 4y ago
Aren’t level 2 systems supposed to be exactly this backup for humans?
cestith 4y ago
Yes, that's important to keep in mind. If the overall system of auto driving plus human turns out to be safer than a human alone, that could still be a good thing. I'd also like to see data, come to think of it, for systems with the safety systems that aren't self driving like lane departure warnings, front and rear collision warnings, adaptive cruise control, automatic braking, driver awareness warnings, head position warnings, directional headlights, night-vision HUDs, and such.