3 ms·
Keep in mind that you're complaining about excluding some incidents with humans drivers, but it's also excluding a whole lot of miles. That is, the denominator
by mlyle 3y ago
Keep in mind that you're complaining about excluding some incidents with humans drivers, but it's also excluding a whole lot of miles. That is, the denominator gets smaller.
We've previously had accident rates vs. total miles disclosed. Now, we have a new, better number (for reasons stated above). Of course, it's always good to look at a variety of measures.
> discussion that might be critical of Waymo’s brand and safety.
When someone uses the word "fatality" to obscure that they're talking about a not-at-fault accident where a dog runs in front of a vehicle and the dog dies, it convinces me that the person I'm talking to is not an honest counterparty in discussion.
- taskforcegemini 3y agoI don't understand your point. Would it be better if it happened to a kid?
- mlyle 3y agoPoints simplified: - Most people reading "fatality" assume that it means a person died. This was not true of the incident. Repeatedly using the word "fatality" here is intentionally misleading. I have not heard the word "fatality" used in accident reporting to describe the death of an animal before. - This was not an at-fault accident. It was not possible to avoid hitting the dog. Talking a lot about this incident doesn't provide very much information about Waymo's safety. (Of course, humans get in accidents that would be impossible for them to avoid, too-- all else being equal such accidents should be included on both sides of the analysis). - The analysis didn't include this incident, because Waymo made a very rational choice to calculate using no-safety-driver miles and incidents. This isn't malice; it doesn't change the numbers much (because incidents and miles both go up when you include safety driver miles) and the numbers are higher quality and less confounded without including safety driver miles.