3 ms·
"It was not a self driving car" That doesn't work for me. The car was clearly "self driving" when it crossed the lane line. Even at very slow speeds that can b
by oblib 4y ago
"It was not a self driving car"
That doesn't work for me. The car was clearly "self driving" when it crossed the lane line. Even at very slow speeds that can be deadly because we're talking about something that can happen in less than a second or two.
You cannot tell someone "this car can drive itself but you must be ready to take control at all times because if it fails it's your fault" while knowing that a failure can happen in less than a second.
From what I've found you're more than twice as likely to get into a wreck when using this tech.
- detaro 4y ago> The car was clearly "self driving" when it crossed the lane line Because it's impossible the driver was driving it manually and made a mistake? It's entirely possible that this was indeed a testing incident (although late afternoon and family with the driver doesn't sound like it, could still be), but we do not know that yet.
- joshstrange 4y ago> The car was clearly "self driving" when it crossed the lane line. Literally not a scrap of proof that is the case here and yet you are willing to state it as fact. > From what I've found you're more than twice as likely to get into a wreck when using this tech. Source? This smells like FUD.
- oblib 4y agoI couldn't find much on this, but I did find this: https://getjerry.com/questions/how-many-fatalities-have-been-due-to-self-driving-vehicles https://getjerry.com/questions/how-many-fatalities-have-been...
- joshstrange 4y agoYou'll have to forgive me for not taking an insurance company's uncited number at face value. > Stats estimate that per million miles driven, there are 9.1 self-driving car accidents, whereas there are only 4.1 crashes per million miles driven with human-operated vehicles. What stats? Where are these stats? Also the type/severity of accident matters here as well which further muddies the water. All that said I'm not willing to accept the status quo just because the new tech has caused a few deaths (5 according to the link you provided) since the status quo is 30-40K/year [0]. Obviously the important stat is a per-capita-type number that gives us "deaths per car of a given automation level, 0-5". [0] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813053 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
- oblib 4y agoI agree that source is lacking. I did find this though, and it says "Verified Tesla Autopilot Death" are at 15 now, but the total deaths from Tesla involved crashes are at 290 since 2013. So you may be more likely to die from being smacked by a Tesla than being in one using their autopilot feature: https://www.tesladeaths.com/ https://www.tesladeaths.com/
- Demonsult 4y agoAgreed because humans do a poor job of passively monitoring automated things for an extended time. I don't think we can talk our way out of that.
- jnwatson 4y agoLevel 2 automation doesn't typically switch lanes. I'd wager 10-to-1 odds this was an active mistake by the driver. It is possible, however, that the car was in lane-following mode and got horribly confused (in which case, it is still a mistake by the driver, just different).
- topspin 4y ago> You cannot tell someone "this car can drive itself but you must be ready to take control at all times because if it fails it's your fault" while knowing that a failure can happen in less than a second. You can; you only need to be powerful enough to dilute responsibly for failures enough to get away with it. It is self evident that the margin for error is too small to rely on human intervention. It is absurd to expect humans to maintain the equivalent of manual driving situational awareness at all times. But when you're hell bent on selling automated driving you lose the capability of grasping these things.