3 ms·
A comparison like this from any trained statistician would be treated as borderline fraud, and is akin to the "we proved cigarettes are safe to smoke" studies d
by Eji1700 3y ago
A comparison like this from any trained statistician would be treated as borderline fraud, and is akin to the "we proved cigarettes are safe to smoke" studies done in the 50-60's.
So to be clear, this is not a "flaw". This is a catastrophic, wrong from the get go, not mentioned and no effort made to control for, failure.
Deliberately misrepresenting data, or in the most charitable case, by sheer mass incompetence, when it involves the safety of people is never ok.
- Two4 3y agoThe fact that automated vehicles operate with much broader safety margins with regard to driving conditions definitely contributes to them being safer overall - humans choosing to drive in worse conditions objectively makes them more dangerous drivers. I also suspect that what others are getting at - that under the same driving conditions safety margins as robocars, humans have a lower accident rate - isn't true, considering the bulk of motor vehicle accidents occur during normal commutes during daylight hours in nominal weather at low speeds. I suspect that even if you control for the elderly, the drunk, and inclement weather, humans will still have worse statistics. I think that humans have a tolerance for risk and ambiguity that makes for statistically worse, albeit more predictable, driving behaviour. But much like you, I don't have any better data to back this up.