6 ms·

Last year 37 people were killed in traffic collisions in San Francisco[1], the highest number in a decade. Zero of them involved autonomous vehicles. The double

• kazinator 4y ago
  It's okay to have one standard for machines and one standard for humans; there is no ethical basis for rejecting it. The term "double standard" refers to some unethical situation where different rules are unfairly applied based on irrelevant distinguishing features, like social class or ethnic background.
• evanb 4y ago
  What is it per mile? Wouldn't surprise me at all if autonomous vehicles made up less than 1/37th of all driven miles (or driven hours). So, even if there is a double standard, the number you quote doesn't make it obvious.
• ncr100 4y ago
  Read the PDF. The point is the hundreds and thousands of disrupted members of the public, by just one vehicle. And the companies want to double, and quadruple the coverage, 24 / 7. And they want to keep the "performance details" secret from the public And, another incident firefighters were almost ran over, their hoses WERE ran over, and the only thing that stopped the AV was a firefighter breaking the window of the Cruise. https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-documents/2023/01/2023.01.25_ccsf_23.0125_cpuc_cruise_tier_2_advice_letter_protest_002.pdf https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-docume...
• hansvm 4y ago
  Which, even if true without caveats, still says almost nothing about the safety of autonomous vehicles since they still haven't had anywhere near enough miles driven cumulatively to expect even a quarter of a death even if they're more dangerous than human drivers. At this stage, evaluating their safety necessarily has to use some other form of data.