4 ms·

The article focuses on trains, but the same thing could be said for autonomous vehicles. When one crashes it is national news because they are so rare. People

The article focuses on trains, but the same thing could be said for autonomous vehicles. When one crashes it is national news because they are so rare. People who say autonomous vehicles won't be viable until the crash rate is zero are setting the bar far too high. The threshold should be fewer accidents and/or fewer fatalities per million miles driven than human drivers. In theory system improvements on the autonomous cars could further reduce those figures, while reducing the accidents involving human factors is very difficult. You can't change people that much. Most of the foreseeable improvements are basically the same ones you would need for autonomous vehicles anyway, like better sensors around the car to detect obstacles.

giantg2 4y ago
"You can't change people that much." The point of licensing is to restrict the privilege to those who can responsibly and competently preform the task. If they can't conform to that, then they shouldn't be driving. Tougher licensing and enforcement would drastically reduce fatalities. We already see this in many European nations with stricter enforcement and licensing.
- jandrese 4y ago
  In the US it is easier to invent autonomous vehicles than take away grandma's drivers license.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    The trouble that many elderly face with smartphones leaves me a little skeptical that autonomous cars are really a solution to that specific problem.
- distant_hat 4y ago
  The thing is in the US driving is essential to having any sort of life for the most part leaving tiny enclaves like NYC aside. And freedom is an important part of US ethos. Autonomous cars as long as they are better than humans would be accepted by a range of people especially by elderly etc because what they want is to get from point A to point B, not necessarily to drive.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Coincidentally, the more rural the area, the less dangerous a driver would be to others and the easier the practical test would be. It's most dangerous in the more populated areas because of the concentration of drivers, pads, and things makes it more likely they would hit something.
belorn 4y ago
We can start by putting the autonomous vehicles to the driver license test to see if they can just pass the lowest standard of driving, ie the quality of a novice driver. If they can't do that without instructor needing to step in then just like the novice they shouldn't be allowed on the roads without a licensed driver to oversee them. That is the bar that autonomous vehicles need to reach. Crash rate of zero is not required, through if it is higher than the average driver then it might be worth to make the license requirements higher.
- jandrese 4y ago
  This doesn't seem like a very high bar to pass. Around here a drivers test involves a short stint on a low speed closed course with a few intersections and then a parallel parking test. Our current self driving systems should have no trouble with that once they are informed what you expect.
  - belorn 4y ago
    I guess every country has their own set of expectations and rules for what qualify for operating a car in a safe manner. Where I live the practical part of the driver exam is 30m of driving in mixed environment, usually involving a number of environments (based on what the driver inspector can find that day). Those involve city driving, country driving and on-off to the highway, with a number of events such as driving in areas where there are pedestrians/cyclists/children, crossing railway, lane changes, roundabouts, passing construction work, and so on. Just like with a driver instructor the car has double controls, but if the inspector has to take control of the car to prevent an accident then its an automatic fail and the person has to retake the test at a later date. Minor failures can be accepted, through the basic concept is that a person who can't drive around for 30 minutes without causing an accident shouldn't be on the road.
rootusrootus 4y ago
> The threshold should be fewer accidents and/or fewer fatalities per million miles driven than human drivers. Those of us who drive defensively strongly disagree with this metric. The "average driver" is extremely skewed towards a relatively small subset of drivers who cause most of the wrecks. Not coincidentally, the same people who can't afford a fancy autonomous car anyway.
- jandrese 4y ago
  Seems like a win if the reckless drivers get booted into autonomous cars, even if those cars are no better at avoiding accidents than careful human drivers.

giantg2 4y ago

"You can't change people that much." The point of licensing is to restrict the privilege to those who can responsibly and competently preform the task. If they can't conform to that, then they shouldn't be driving. Tougher licensing and enforcement would drastically reduce fatalities. We already see this in many European nations with stricter enforcement and licensing.

jandrese 4y ago
In the US it is easier to invent autonomous vehicles than take away grandma's drivers license.
- giantg2 4y ago
  The trouble that many elderly face with smartphones leaves me a little skeptical that autonomous cars are really a solution to that specific problem.
distant_hat 4y ago
The thing is in the US driving is essential to having any sort of life for the most part leaving tiny enclaves like NYC aside. And freedom is an important part of US ethos. Autonomous cars as long as they are better than humans would be accepted by a range of people especially by elderly etc because what they want is to get from point A to point B, not necessarily to drive.
- giantg2 4y ago
  Coincidentally, the more rural the area, the less dangerous a driver would be to others and the easier the practical test would be. It's most dangerous in the more populated areas because of the concentration of drivers, pads, and things makes it more likely they would hit something.

belorn 4y ago

We can start by putting the autonomous vehicles to the driver license test to see if they can just pass the lowest standard of driving, ie the quality of a novice driver. If they can't do that without instructor needing to step in then just like the novice they shouldn't be allowed on the roads without a licensed driver to oversee them. That is the bar that autonomous vehicles need to reach. Crash rate of zero is not required, through if it is higher than the average driver then it might be worth to make the license requirements higher.

jandrese 4y ago
This doesn't seem like a very high bar to pass. Around here a drivers test involves a short stint on a low speed closed course with a few intersections and then a parallel parking test. Our current self driving systems should have no trouble with that once they are informed what you expect.
- belorn 4y ago
  I guess every country has their own set of expectations and rules for what qualify for operating a car in a safe manner. Where I live the practical part of the driver exam is 30m of driving in mixed environment, usually involving a number of environments (based on what the driver inspector can find that day). Those involve city driving, country driving and on-off to the highway, with a number of events such as driving in areas where there are pedestrians/cyclists/children, crossing railway, lane changes, roundabouts, passing construction work, and so on. Just like with a driver instructor the car has double controls, but if the inspector has to take control of the car to prevent an accident then its an automatic fail and the person has to retake the test at a later date. Minor failures can be accepted, through the basic concept is that a person who can't drive around for 30 minutes without causing an accident shouldn't be on the road.

rootusrootus 4y ago

> The threshold should be fewer accidents and/or fewer fatalities per million miles driven than human drivers. Those of us who drive defensively strongly disagree with this metric. The "average driver" is extremely skewed towards a relatively small subset of drivers who cause most of the wrecks. Not coincidentally, the same people who can't afford a fancy autonomous car anyway.

jandrese 4y ago
Seems like a win if the reckless drivers get booted into autonomous cars, even if those cars are no better at avoiding accidents than careful human drivers.