4 ms·

I’d like to see AVs compared to the average good driver. I’d bet it’s a lot closer in that case.

smileysteve 3y ago
The average "good" driver is likely the p90 though. 60% of US drivers survey to using a hand held cell phone while driving. an intersection, but not exclusively 30% of US drivers survey to driving under the influence of alcohol in the last year; and that's generally excluding "buzzed"/under the legal limit - which may be lawful - but likely take one out of the "good" category. Then you have medical conditions that go unchecked for driving in the US, peripheral vision, far-sightedness checked once a decade, reaction time, physical disabilities. Then you have following too closely, speeding, accelerating too quickly, braking too quickly, taking turns too quickly, vehicles lacking maintenance (tires with little tread, inappropriate tread for roads, brakes not bled every ~2 years, lights out, suspension unchecked, carolina raised trucks) Finally, you can add in US infrastructure, which traditionally maximizes speed and minimizes safety -- and generally gets a C-.
2muchcoffeeman 3y ago
I'm not bullish on self driving cars, but that's a bit unfair. If their car performs better than 50% of the population, then that sounds like a success.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  The thing is that 50% (even more) of the population should not be allowed to drive to begin with and we shouldn't wait for any technology to be ready to remove them from the road. That is the real elephant in the room that nobody wants to mention, especially political representatives who would be afraid to lose votes.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    You need to set up alternatives or you're destroying lives and they'll drive anyway.
    - prmoustache 3y ago
      This is knee jerk reaction. Why the states and cities would have their role to increase public transit, other alternatives would set them up naturally in fact from private sector or people adopting other means of transportation. [1] which would become immediately more profitable or less unprofitable depending on the area.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        Getting those people into self-driving cars would be fantastic. Pretending there's a larger issue at play that overshadows that fantasticness is just pessimism. Sometimes it's easier to spend billions and grapple ingeniously with reality to create something new than it is to change the mind of a public official.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        In the areas where it's not profitable enough, it won't get set up. And we can guarantee that states and cities will leave huge gaps.
        prmoustache 3y ago
        And people would share drive or whatever it takes to make up for that.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        Lots of people have no one else going near their workplace at nearly the same time. Shared drives can't get anywhere near half of people to work. So you have to fall back on paid trips, and that is too much money for a random shift making anything in the realm of minimum wage. It just doesn't work economically. Many many areas without sufficient transit will suffer badly.
        prmoustache 3y ago
        If people are not willing to drive correctly without being distracted or under influence, that is their fault. We shouldn't have to trade security of everybody for the conveniency of the reckless ones. That whole sense of entitlement is baffling. Besides cars are more expensive than riding a bike to a place where public transit is available.
  - thereisnospork 3y ago
    Let's not look a gift horse in the mouth though? Petty little things like political ramifications have a funny way of not being so petty,by definition 51% of people in a democracy can decide they will not be stopped from driving.
    - komali2 3y ago
      > by definition 51% of people in a democracy can decide they will not be stopped from driving. This is an oversimplification. First of all, some percentage of legal drivers are not allowed to vote (non-citizens, 15-18 year olds, felons). Second, this assumes a "pure democracy," which the USA is not for several reasons, first of which is the fact that it's representative, second of which is that its representative rations haven't been updated in like a hundred years (if they were, there'd be thousands of members of congress, and California would have over a tenth of them), and finally, because of disenfranchisement through voter roll purges, gerrymandering, and political arrests (such as when ex-con felons in Florida were directly lied to and told they were allowed to vote so as to entrap them into committing the felony of voting as a felon). Anyway we shouldn't assume people wouldn't vote against taking away the right to drive, if it came with the building out of good public transit infrastructure in return, which is what the USA desperately needs anyway. Not that I'm naive enough to think there's political will to make this happen, but the whole self driving car thing would be pretty moot if it was easy to get around San Francisco as it is to get around Paris, NYC, Tokyo, Taipei, etc.
    - prmoustache 3y ago
      > Petty little things like political ramifications have a funny way of not being so petty,by definition 51% of people in a democracy can decide they will not be stopped from driving. I am pretty sure among those 51% of people only a fraction is made up of total assholes that wouldn't change the way they drive if rules were more strict while another fraction could accept more and more stringent laws, especially if they come gradually and would increase their standards of driving to keep that privilege.
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    remove them from the road What if that was you? Or is everyone on HN a "good driver"? I am terrible driver. I am so easily distracted by construction sites or nice nature.
- shapefrog 3y ago
  Stand in a room with an actual representation of the population and you will feel very differently about what it takes to get to 51%.

The average "good" driver is likely the p90 though. 60% of US drivers survey to using a hand held cell phone while driving. an intersection, but not exclusively 30% of US drivers survey to driving under the influence of alcohol in the last year; and that's generally excluding "buzzed"/under the legal limit - which may be lawful - but likely take one out of the "good" category. Then you have medical conditions that go unchecked for driving in the US, peripheral vision, far-sightedness checked once a decade, reaction time, physical disabilities. Then you have following too closely, speeding, accelerating too quickly, braking too quickly, taking turns too quickly, vehicles lacking maintenance (tires with little tread, inappropriate tread for roads, brakes not bled every ~2 years, lights out, suspension unchecked, carolina raised trucks) Finally, you can add in US infrastructure, which traditionally maximizes speed and minimizes safety -- and generally gets a C-.

2muchcoffeeman 3y ago

I'm not bullish on self driving cars, but that's a bit unfair. If their car performs better than 50% of the population, then that sounds like a success.

prmoustache 3y ago
The thing is that 50% (even more) of the population should not be allowed to drive to begin with and we shouldn't wait for any technology to be ready to remove them from the road. That is the real elephant in the room that nobody wants to mention, especially political representatives who would be afraid to lose votes.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  You need to set up alternatives or you're destroying lives and they'll drive anyway.
  - prmoustache 3y ago
    This is knee jerk reaction. Why the states and cities would have their role to increase public transit, other alternatives would set them up naturally in fact from private sector or people adopting other means of transportation. [1] which would become immediately more profitable or less unprofitable depending on the area.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Getting those people into self-driving cars would be fantastic. Pretending there's a larger issue at play that overshadows that fantasticness is just pessimism. Sometimes it's easier to spend billions and grapple ingeniously with reality to create something new than it is to change the mind of a public official.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      In the areas where it's not profitable enough, it won't get set up. And we can guarantee that states and cities will leave huge gaps.
      - prmoustache 3y ago
        And people would share drive or whatever it takes to make up for that.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        Lots of people have no one else going near their workplace at nearly the same time. Shared drives can't get anywhere near half of people to work. So you have to fall back on paid trips, and that is too much money for a random shift making anything in the realm of minimum wage. It just doesn't work economically. Many many areas without sufficient transit will suffer badly.
        prmoustache 3y ago
        If people are not willing to drive correctly without being distracted or under influence, that is their fault. We shouldn't have to trade security of everybody for the conveniency of the reckless ones. That whole sense of entitlement is baffling. Besides cars are more expensive than riding a bike to a place where public transit is available.
- thereisnospork 3y ago
  Let's not look a gift horse in the mouth though? Petty little things like political ramifications have a funny way of not being so petty,by definition 51% of people in a democracy can decide they will not be stopped from driving.
  - komali2 3y ago
    > by definition 51% of people in a democracy can decide they will not be stopped from driving. This is an oversimplification. First of all, some percentage of legal drivers are not allowed to vote (non-citizens, 15-18 year olds, felons). Second, this assumes a "pure democracy," which the USA is not for several reasons, first of which is the fact that it's representative, second of which is that its representative rations haven't been updated in like a hundred years (if they were, there'd be thousands of members of congress, and California would have over a tenth of them), and finally, because of disenfranchisement through voter roll purges, gerrymandering, and political arrests (such as when ex-con felons in Florida were directly lied to and told they were allowed to vote so as to entrap them into committing the felony of voting as a felon). Anyway we shouldn't assume people wouldn't vote against taking away the right to drive, if it came with the building out of good public transit infrastructure in return, which is what the USA desperately needs anyway. Not that I'm naive enough to think there's political will to make this happen, but the whole self driving car thing would be pretty moot if it was easy to get around San Francisco as it is to get around Paris, NYC, Tokyo, Taipei, etc.
  - prmoustache 3y ago
    > Petty little things like political ramifications have a funny way of not being so petty,by definition 51% of people in a democracy can decide they will not be stopped from driving. I am pretty sure among those 51% of people only a fraction is made up of total assholes that wouldn't change the way they drive if rules were more strict while another fraction could accept more and more stringent laws, especially if they come gradually and would increase their standards of driving to keep that privilege.
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  remove them from the road What if that was you? Or is everyone on HN a "good driver"? I am terrible driver. I am so easily distracted by construction sites or nice nature.
shapefrog 3y ago
Stand in a room with an actual representation of the population and you will feel very differently about what it takes to get to 51%.