4 ms·

I'm interested in understanding why you would want every subdivision of "type of crash" to strictly improve, rather than being content that the combined crash r

I'm interested in understanding why you would want every subdivision of "type of crash" to strictly improve, rather than being content that the combined crash rate goes down? i.e. if Tesla causes 100 new crashes of type A but saves 200 of type B, isn't that a gain? Even if type A crashes are one which humans don't normally make. A way in which I agree with you is if type B crashes are more avoidable by conscientious drivers, and you feel that your personal base rate of B is therefore already low, and that introducing new type A risk is actually NOT an all-in improvement for you.

not2b 4y ago
Is there any evidence that you can point to that Teslas are saving more crashes than they are causing, compared to some other vehicle with basic collision avoidance features?
- epivosism 4y ago
  I've googled and found some very partisan sites. It seems hard to tell what's going on. My overall analysis is: Tesla has some very serious enemies in other automakers, lawyers, etc. And yet, there are no clear studies or statistics saying they're worse, and Tesla claims they are safer. This isn't a very good analysis and I'd love to have a clearer more well-defined group for statistical comparison, but it at least seems plausible to me.
epivosism 4y ago
If you were hiring a human chauffeur would you insist they be better than your current driver in all conditions (rain, night-time, snow, off-road)? Or would you more likely ask that they be minimally competent in all likely conditions, and that his driving style in aggregate, for your current driving profile, be an improvement? Insisting on not replacing a driver until every subcategory of driving type is strictly improved seems too stringent. You still have an out here by saying that you're willing to accept more net risk due to "meta" factors like "driver not meeting minimal competence factors". But it would still be more honest in that case to fully admit that this reasoning requires knowingly accepting likely real-world increased fatalities. And as an aside, for humans, "minimal competence" testing is reasonable - but at large scales & in statistical realms, such metrics value in protection from false claims are of less value since we already have millions of miles of real-world performance tests.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> i.e. if Tesla causes 100 new crashes of type A but saves 200 of type B, isn't that a gain? Even if type A crashes are one which humans don't normally make By that logic proffeshional racing drivers should be allowed to drive drunk and stoned
remarkEon 4y ago
You and I actually agree completely. I was attempting to steelman an argument for why a lot of people remain hostile to the concept of self driving all together.

not2b 4y ago

Is there any evidence that you can point to that Teslas are saving more crashes than they are causing, compared to some other vehicle with basic collision avoidance features?

epivosism 4y ago
I've googled and found some very partisan sites. It seems hard to tell what's going on. My overall analysis is: Tesla has some very serious enemies in other automakers, lawyers, etc. And yet, there are no clear studies or statistics saying they're worse, and Tesla claims they are safer. This isn't a very good analysis and I'd love to have a clearer more well-defined group for statistical comparison, but it at least seems plausible to me.

epivosism 4y ago

If you were hiring a human chauffeur would you insist they be better than your current driver in all conditions (rain, night-time, snow, off-road)? Or would you more likely ask that they be minimally competent in all likely conditions, and that his driving style in aggregate, for your current driving profile, be an improvement? Insisting on not replacing a driver until every subcategory of driving type is strictly improved seems too stringent. You still have an out here by saying that you're willing to accept more net risk due to "meta" factors like "driver not meeting minimal competence factors". But it would still be more honest in that case to fully admit that this reasoning requires knowingly accepting likely real-world increased fatalities. And as an aside, for humans, "minimal competence" testing is reasonable - but at large scales & in statistical realms, such metrics value in protection from false claims are of less value since we already have millions of miles of real-world performance tests.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> i.e. if Tesla causes 100 new crashes of type A but saves 200 of type B, isn't that a gain? Even if type A crashes are one which humans don't normally make By that logic proffeshional racing drivers should be allowed to drive drunk and stoned

remarkEon 4y ago

You and I actually agree completely. I was attempting to steelman an argument for why a lot of people remain hostile to the concept of self driving all together.