4 ms·

but just because they have weird failure cases does not mean they fail less often than human drivers either.

gruez 3y ago
Right, but the OP seems to be skipping that part entirely. The only metric we should care about is overall accident rates (controlling for reasonable variables of course), not "safely navigating situations that below-average human drivers rarely struggle with".
- hef19898 3y ago
  Given that driverless cars are slim minority on our roads, if they exist at all, failure modes actually do matter a lot. Human drivwr failure modes are what everybody is used to, and trained by everyday life to cope with. The radom, unpredictable stuff driverless cars do is in itsrlf dangerous from that perspective.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 3y ago
    This isn’t the kind of thing you need to theorize about when there’s real world data to look at. American drivers have 13.5 deaths per billion vehicle miles, you can try and adjust that for conditions etc but people still fuck up driving good cars in nearly perfect conditions. The fully autonomous cars without safety drivers haven’t yet crossed the threshold to compare fatalities, but you can compare vs the 5 million car accidents in the U.S. each year 43% of which resulted in injuries. So there’s enough data to know they aren’t wildly dangerous.
    - lancesells 3y ago
      I think the jury is still out since these cars are deployed in very specific, limited environments. In my opinion you need to compare only the areas they are driving in vs the accidents in only those areas. If they don't use freeways or specific streets, or drive in the rain, than those needed to be excluded in the data. There are other factors like if they make unintended stops, cause traffic, etc. that don't get marked as accidents. I would love it if they all worked and saved lives but I'm not yet sold on this.
- Gabrys1 3y ago
  I don't think that IS a fair metric. Be it for Tesla or for robotaxi and let me explain why. Tesla vehicles should be compared to similar vehicles driven by people that can afford a Tesla. (Not to a national average that includes lots of small, cheap or old cars). Robotaxis incident rates should be compared to taxi incident rates in the specific areas. There should be some way of factoring in the overly-cautious driving causing other drivers to do stupid shit because they got annoyed by the cars in question. (Not sure how exactly though)
  - gruez 3y ago
    >Tesla vehicles should be compared to similar vehicles driven by people that can afford a Tesla. (Not to a national average that includes lots of small, cheap or old cars). >Robotaxis incident rates should be compared to taxi incident rates in the specific areas. That's what I said in the original comment? >overall accident rates (controlling for reasonable variables of course)
    - Gabrys1 3y ago
      You did say that, not sure how I missed that. Sorry for that
      - Tempest1981 3y ago
        Your example helped me. I wasn't thinking of that.

Right, but the OP seems to be skipping that part entirely. The only metric we should care about is overall accident rates (controlling for reasonable variables of course), not "safely navigating situations that below-average human drivers rarely struggle with".

hef19898 3y ago
Given that driverless cars are slim minority on our roads, if they exist at all, failure modes actually do matter a lot. Human drivwr failure modes are what everybody is used to, and trained by everyday life to cope with. The radom, unpredictable stuff driverless cars do is in itsrlf dangerous from that perspective.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 3y ago
  This isn’t the kind of thing you need to theorize about when there’s real world data to look at. American drivers have 13.5 deaths per billion vehicle miles, you can try and adjust that for conditions etc but people still fuck up driving good cars in nearly perfect conditions. The fully autonomous cars without safety drivers haven’t yet crossed the threshold to compare fatalities, but you can compare vs the 5 million car accidents in the U.S. each year 43% of which resulted in injuries. So there’s enough data to know they aren’t wildly dangerous.
  - lancesells 3y ago
    I think the jury is still out since these cars are deployed in very specific, limited environments. In my opinion you need to compare only the areas they are driving in vs the accidents in only those areas. If they don't use freeways or specific streets, or drive in the rain, than those needed to be excluded in the data. There are other factors like if they make unintended stops, cause traffic, etc. that don't get marked as accidents. I would love it if they all worked and saved lives but I'm not yet sold on this.
Gabrys1 3y ago
I don't think that IS a fair metric. Be it for Tesla or for robotaxi and let me explain why. Tesla vehicles should be compared to similar vehicles driven by people that can afford a Tesla. (Not to a national average that includes lots of small, cheap or old cars). Robotaxis incident rates should be compared to taxi incident rates in the specific areas. There should be some way of factoring in the overly-cautious driving causing other drivers to do stupid shit because they got annoyed by the cars in question. (Not sure how exactly though)
- gruez 3y ago
  >Tesla vehicles should be compared to similar vehicles driven by people that can afford a Tesla. (Not to a national average that includes lots of small, cheap or old cars). >Robotaxis incident rates should be compared to taxi incident rates in the specific areas. That's what I said in the original comment? >overall accident rates (controlling for reasonable variables of course)
  - Gabrys1 3y ago
    You did say that, not sure how I missed that. Sorry for that
    - Tempest1981 3y ago
      Your example helped me. I wasn't thinking of that.