4 ms·

Is there evidence that Cruise is more dangerous than a human driver?

thatfrenchguy 3y ago
Given they didn't suspend Waymo, I would guess they must have been doing something so egregious that the median driver would not do.
- sleepybrett 3y ago
  I thought i just read that they were just allowed to put a lot more vehicles on the road, maybe because of a promise that they would be better but now we find that they are not?
potatolicious 3y ago
... a human driver doesn't stop in the middle of the road and become fully unresponsive when the cell phone network goes down?
runako 3y ago
This is the standard to which the builders of autonomous vehicles wish to be held. However, this is unlikely in my opinion. I believe instead they will be held to the more rigorous standard of "is there evidence that this is dangerous?" Note for example today's suit against Meta for alleged harms against children. No such suit against TV aimed at children or e.g. fashion magazines that are well-known to have deleterious effects on children. Autonomous vehicles are new tech, so the bar will be higher.
add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
Specious and reductive. It's qualitative, not quantitative. Even though the latter is easier for people to understand. We have decades of data about human-caused accidents. We know the ceiling is relatively stable. We know an additional 20% of drivers won't wake up tomorrow incompetent or drunk. Anything above zero is bad, but we know and accept the status quo. But every new model or software update will invalidate what we've observed and know about automated driving. We're in an era of extreme obfuscation and enshittification by tech companies, even where safety is involved. I'd be more likely to trust self driving tech if I trusted the current form of the tech industry, and trusted that regulatory bodies had the power and ability to oversee them as effectively as when they were first regulating cars. Of course even that wasn't perfect, but my trust that we can even do that well is nonexistent.
DeIlliad 3y ago
I do not believe "it's as dangerous as a human driver" is a good reason to look past all the problems with self-driving cars. There should be a higher standard than that.
- notJim 3y ago
  Why? And what are "all the problems with self-driving cars"?
- sorokod 3y ago
  Let's not forget that the companies that develop and lobby for self driving cars do it for profit. Whatever safety qualities they may or may not have are there to deliver and maximize profit. At this point in time. Public transport is a safer alternative but not as profitable
  - DeIlliad 3y ago
    I completely agree that self-driving and electric cars aren't the answer but investing in public transport is. You won't get an argument out of me about that.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  If X is already allowed, Y is a replacement for X, and Y is safer than X, then why wouldn't you want to allow Y?
wolverine876 3y ago
That is a standard that the self-driving industry likes to promulgate, I'm guessing because it's rhetorically powerful and because it suits them. is it accepted as a standard by any professionals? Why or why not?
- endtime 3y ago
  I'm not in the industry, though I did briefly work on a self-driving car in grad school back in 2009. One simple and obvious reason for this standard is that it optimizes for human safety.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you are in the industry. I meant they've normalized it to a large degree.
    - endtime 3y ago
      I'm not who you were originally replying to so I definitely didn't think you were implying thing about me (I also didn't think you were implying anything about the person you were replying to). I was just qualifying my opinion on the safer-than-a-human standard as a non-industry one.
sonofhans 3y ago
“A human driver” is not the standard, not should it be. Humans need training, experience, physical dexterity, and motivation (and more besides) to be good drivers. If you average human drivers you include barely-competent teenagers, barely-dextrous old people, drunk people, etc. “A highly-skilled and attentive human driver” is a reasonable standard. So-called autonomous vehicles are nowhere near that.
sleepybrett 3y ago
There is evidence that when a self driving car is stalled in the middle of the street no one can actually figure out what they are going to do from moment to moment. No driver to yell at, doesn't respond to honking... should I go open the door and hit some big 'call mothership' button on the dash...Or will it try and run me over...
howinteresting 3y ago
A human driver at what percentile? I think AVs need to be better than p95 or so to be socially accepted.
- starbase 3y ago
  I like that threshold--the best driver in 20. If we can achieve that, the best in 100 or best in 1000 may not be far off.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  Why? Do you think good drivers will be more willing to switch to AVs than bad drivers will?

Given they didn't suspend Waymo, I would guess they must have been doing something so egregious that the median driver would not do.

sleepybrett 3y ago
I thought i just read that they were just allowed to put a lot more vehicles on the road, maybe because of a promise that they would be better but now we find that they are not?

potatolicious 3y ago

... a human driver doesn't stop in the middle of the road and become fully unresponsive when the cell phone network goes down?

runako 3y ago

This is the standard to which the builders of autonomous vehicles wish to be held. However, this is unlikely in my opinion. I believe instead they will be held to the more rigorous standard of "is there evidence that this is dangerous?" Note for example today's suit against Meta for alleged harms against children. No such suit against TV aimed at children or e.g. fashion magazines that are well-known to have deleterious effects on children. Autonomous vehicles are new tech, so the bar will be higher.

add-sub-mul-div 3y ago

Specious and reductive. It's qualitative, not quantitative. Even though the latter is easier for people to understand. We have decades of data about human-caused accidents. We know the ceiling is relatively stable. We know an additional 20% of drivers won't wake up tomorrow incompetent or drunk. Anything above zero is bad, but we know and accept the status quo. But every new model or software update will invalidate what we've observed and know about automated driving. We're in an era of extreme obfuscation and enshittification by tech companies, even where safety is involved. I'd be more likely to trust self driving tech if I trusted the current form of the tech industry, and trusted that regulatory bodies had the power and ability to oversee them as effectively as when they were first regulating cars. Of course even that wasn't perfect, but my trust that we can even do that well is nonexistent.

DeIlliad 3y ago

I do not believe "it's as dangerous as a human driver" is a good reason to look past all the problems with self-driving cars. There should be a higher standard than that.

notJim 3y ago
Why? And what are "all the problems with self-driving cars"?
sorokod 3y ago
Let's not forget that the companies that develop and lobby for self driving cars do it for profit. Whatever safety qualities they may or may not have are there to deliver and maximize profit. At this point in time. Public transport is a safer alternative but not as profitable
- DeIlliad 3y ago
  I completely agree that self-driving and electric cars aren't the answer but investing in public transport is. You won't get an argument out of me about that.
josephcsible 3y ago
If X is already allowed, Y is a replacement for X, and Y is safer than X, then why wouldn't you want to allow Y?

wolverine876 3y ago

That is a standard that the self-driving industry likes to promulgate, I'm guessing because it's rhetorically powerful and because it suits them. is it accepted as a standard by any professionals? Why or why not?

endtime 3y ago
I'm not in the industry, though I did briefly work on a self-driving car in grad school back in 2009. One simple and obvious reason for this standard is that it optimizes for human safety.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you are in the industry. I meant they've normalized it to a large degree.
  - endtime 3y ago
    I'm not who you were originally replying to so I definitely didn't think you were implying thing about me (I also didn't think you were implying anything about the person you were replying to). I was just qualifying my opinion on the safer-than-a-human standard as a non-industry one.

sonofhans 3y ago

“A human driver” is not the standard, not should it be. Humans need training, experience, physical dexterity, and motivation (and more besides) to be good drivers. If you average human drivers you include barely-competent teenagers, barely-dextrous old people, drunk people, etc. “A highly-skilled and attentive human driver” is a reasonable standard. So-called autonomous vehicles are nowhere near that.

sleepybrett 3y ago

There is evidence that when a self driving car is stalled in the middle of the street no one can actually figure out what they are going to do from moment to moment. No driver to yell at, doesn't respond to honking... should I go open the door and hit some big 'call mothership' button on the dash...Or will it try and run me over...

howinteresting 3y ago

A human driver at what percentile? I think AVs need to be better than p95 or so to be socially accepted.

starbase 3y ago
I like that threshold--the best driver in 20. If we can achieve that, the best in 100 or best in 1000 may not be far off.
josephcsible 3y ago
Why? Do you think good drivers will be more willing to switch to AVs than bad drivers will?