5 ms·

This also doesn't account for non-safety related risks of self-driving cars, relative to human drivers. For example, it's quite common for an autonomous vehicl

by lukev 3y ago

This also doesn't account for non-safety related risks of self-driving cars, relative to human drivers. For example, it's quite common for an autonomous vehicle to slow down or stop in a way that disrupts traffic. This isn't "unsafe", per-se, and in fact it's probably the car's safety protocols functioning correctly. But (depending how frequently it happens) it's still a strong argument against deploying these things on public roads. We need vehicles that are not only safer than human drivers, but less disruptive and more competent overall.

jackcviers3 3y ago
Perhaps it's an indication that humans are far more acceptable of risk in cars than they should be.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
konschubert 3y ago
Of course there is a limit. But if the self driving vehicles are being a bit slower than human-driven cars, that’s a very small price to pay for the huge safety benefits. In fact, as a pedestrian and cyclist, I could not care less.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  The issue isn’t that they are too slow, it is that they are too erratic. Slamming the brakes for no reason is unexpected behavior, which makes it more likely that a crash will occur.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  > as a pedestrian and cyclist, I could not care less. I mean, if you don't use something, you don't care about downsides that apply to it. That's not a great argument, unless you also only want to convince other people who don't use cars to not use Waymos.
  - konschubert 3y ago
    I also use cars.
- xoa 3y ago
  >But if the self driving vehicles are being a bit slower than human-driven cars, that’s a very small price to pay for the huge safety benefits. The safety benefit doesn't even have to factor in, or only somewhat. Part of the drive for speed with human driven vehicles is that for most of us it represents pure waste in our lives. The two hours I drive to a job isn't some uplifting activity, just robotic drudgery. Yeah I can load up a podcast or something and try to get something out of the time (at the cost of slightly more distraction perhaps!) but that's limited. So of course I'm motivated to have that be as short as possible. Shaving off 15 minutes on a trip made a hundred times a year will add up to weeks of my life back to me, although of course at a higher risk of losing my life entirely perhaps? Whereas if the robotic aspect was taken care of by a computer instead, I'd be free to make far more use of that time. Or even just sleep, which is still useful. If the car takes an extra half hour, that's not necessarily a problem in the slightest because it's not a wasted half hour. Being conservative will be much easier purely from a self-interested perspective. Avoiding all the other issues is very good as well but I don't think it'd require some self-sacrifice either. >In fact, as a pedestrian and cyclist, I could not care less. Well, you should.

by lukev 3y ago

jackcviers3 3y ago

Perhaps it's an indication that humans are far more acceptable of risk in cars than they should be.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

konschubert 3y ago

Of course there is a limit. But if the self driving vehicles are being a bit slower than human-driven cars, that’s a very small price to pay for the huge safety benefits. In fact, as a pedestrian and cyclist, I could not care less.

bee_rider 3y ago
The issue isn’t that they are too slow, it is that they are too erratic. Slamming the brakes for no reason is unexpected behavior, which makes it more likely that a crash will occur.
HWR_14 3y ago
> as a pedestrian and cyclist, I could not care less. I mean, if you don't use something, you don't care about downsides that apply to it. That's not a great argument, unless you also only want to convince other people who don't use cars to not use Waymos.
- konschubert 3y ago
  I also use cars.
xoa 3y ago
>But if the self driving vehicles are being a bit slower than human-driven cars, that’s a very small price to pay for the huge safety benefits. The safety benefit doesn't even have to factor in, or only somewhat. Part of the drive for speed with human driven vehicles is that for most of us it represents pure waste in our lives. The two hours I drive to a job isn't some uplifting activity, just robotic drudgery. Yeah I can load up a podcast or something and try to get something out of the time (at the cost of slightly more distraction perhaps!) but that's limited. So of course I'm motivated to have that be as short as possible. Shaving off 15 minutes on a trip made a hundred times a year will add up to weeks of my life back to me, although of course at a higher risk of losing my life entirely perhaps? Whereas if the robotic aspect was taken care of by a computer instead, I'd be free to make far more use of that time. Or even just sleep, which is still useful. If the car takes an extra half hour, that's not necessarily a problem in the slightest because it's not a wasted half hour. Being conservative will be much easier purely from a self-interested perspective. Avoiding all the other issues is very good as well but I don't think it'd require some self-sacrifice either. >In fact, as a pedestrian and cyclist, I could not care less. Well, you should.