6 ms·
> seems all too comfortable ignoring the other crashes that happen daily In your view, what is the MVP for self-driving car safety, in terms of the number of c
by cmsj 4y ago
> seems all too comfortable ignoring the other crashes that happen daily
In your view, what is the MVP for self-driving car safety, in terms of the number of crashes/deaths per day?
- shultays 4y agoLower than human driven cars? I think it is just basic math at that point when you try to generalize things.
- cmsj 4y agoThe question was not really a quantitative one. The purpose of asking that question is to determine the mindset of the person answering. Safety systems don't generally get built with an MVP mindset, but that seems to be what is happening with autonomous cars and it's concerning to me on multiple fronts.
- notatoad 4y agohttps://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state... somewhere around 1 death per hundred million miles seems reasonable.
- joshstrange 4y ago1 less death/accident than cars with only human drivers per capita. And level 1+ automation must be in separate buckets. For example: 9 accidents out of 100 cars on the road in some level of driver automation (bucketed per-level) is acceptable if there were 10 accidents of 100 cars on the road with only a human driver over the same timespan (probably some kind of rolling average). We should absolutely investigate the causes of driverless car (at any level) crashes and penalize companies if they are at fault and the issue was foreseeable but a lot people seem to think the only acceptable answer is “0 accidents” which is just absurd. Don’t let good be the enemy of great.
- cmsj 4y agoI'd like to invite you to consider that with the (I would say) utilitarian view that one less death is an acceptable MVP, you are implicitly saying that you'd be ok with products being sold in the full knowledge that they would autonomously kill tens of thousands of people per year. While it may be true that perfect is the enemy of good, there is also such a thing as setting the bar too low.
- joshstrange 4y ago> you are implicitly saying that you'd be ok with products being sold in the full knowledge that they would autonomously kill tens of thousands of people per year. Which is the status quo for both cars and a bunch of other industries (pharma, tabaco, alcohol, fast food, the list goes on). Nothing is ever perfect (though many things don't have "death" as a potential failure case) but you are only looking at the downside and ignoring the lives that would be saved. I don't think many families think "Well our Bobby died in a car accident that would have been preventable by technology but even if he had access to it thousands of other people would still die even while using that tech so we are ok with him dying".
- aidenn0 4y ago> Which is the status quo for both cars and a bunch of other industries The key difference here is that alcohol and tobacco do not autonomously kill people. We can feel safe blaming deaths caused by them on the individuals who purchased and used those products. Same with automotive deaths. As soon as the blame goes from diffuse individuals to a single locus, the torts will come out in full-force. If a self-driving car kills 10% as many people per vehicle-mile as the average individual driver, then the company making it will get sued out of existence.
- abracadabra_ 4y agoHave you considered that by not allowing that product to be sold you are indirectly responsible for any extra deaths caused by human drivers?