5 ms·

> The fundamental problem of self-driving cars in cities is that they are expected to be 100% safe. They could be 10 times as safe as regular cars, but it would

> The fundamental problem of self-driving cars in cities is that they are expected to be 100% safe. They could be 10 times as safe as regular cars, but it wouldn't save them from headlines of "robot car kills an innocent person". Well, yes, because all the proponents of self-driving cars tout the fact that computer driven cars are way safer than human drivers. And they're not. Those 10 times safer than humans have no actual meaning in practice, because if they can brake 100ms faster than a human would, in practice it makes no difference. What would make a difference would be to be fully aware of anything that might happen, have solutions for every possibility and react accordingly in I don't know, say 20-30 milliseconds. So when a self-driving car hits and kills a pedestrian it is a failure on the self-driving system (assuming the pedestrian just doesn't jump in front of the car out of nowhere). Self-driving cars don't have three things that humans have: instinct, experience and contextual awareness. No matter how many miles they drive, they can't learn as humans do.

spongebobstoes 3y ago
It would be more reasonable to compare a self driving car to the median or average human driver, rather than a highly skilled one. That's what we're dealing with today: humans (distracted, elderly, tired, bored) who routinely kill and maim each other with cars. As long as self driving cars will reduce the number of deaths per mile driven (and I think the data shows that), I think they should be allowed on the roads.
Denvercoder9 3y ago
> Those 10 times safer than humans have no actual meaning in practice I'd say that accidents or injuries per mile driven has quite a lot actual meaning. I don't know if they are at 10x compared to human drivers on those stats yet, but when they are, I'd say it's a reasonable take to say that they're 10x safer.
smsm42 3y ago
> the proponents of self-driving cars tout the fact that computer driven cars are way safer than human drivers. And they're not. It sounds like you conflating two claims: safety(computer car) == 100% and safety(computer car) > safety(human driver). Refuting the former (which is easy) does not refute the latter, though the converse would be true of course. But is it true that human driver is safer or the same? > because if they can brake 100ms faster than a human would, in practice it makes no difference That claim would be stronger with some better substantiation. I think it makes sense that faster reaction time and better focus leads to better safety record. That's why we prosecute people for DUI - because we have reasons to believe that slower reaction and more distracted driving when under influence leads to worse safety. Consequently, faster reaction and less distracted driving would lead to a better one. It will still be imperfect, but likely less imperfect than human driver, with lesser failure rate. > What would make a difference would be to be fully aware of anything that might happen, You make impossible demand - no mechanism or system could be ready for "anything that might happen", and nobody - at least nobody not having super-natural clairvoyance - could be aware of absolutely everything everywhere. There will always be weird coincidences and hidden things, the question is how fast the system can adapt and find a safe(r) solution. > Self-driving cars don't have three things that humans have: instinct, experience and contextual awareness They certainly have a system analogous to "instinct", and they can learn (even if not in the same way as humans, but who says it's the only way?). It is true that they don't really understand the context, but I wonder how important that is compared to the speed of reaction, lack of distractions and ability to control the vehicle? I would estimate most of the accidents happen because the driver either didn't notice something, or didn't react in time, or reacted not in the way that is optimal (like slamming the brakes on an icy road, or swerving too hard and losing control). A computerized driver would be much better on those dimensions. It would be worse on deciphering complex and unusual scenarios, but I don't think most of the accidents are of that nature.
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  > You make impossible demand - no mechanism or system could be ready for "anything that might happen", and nobody - at least nobody not having super-natural clairvoyance - could be aware of absolutely everything everywhere. There will always be weird coincidences and hidden things, the question is how fast the system can adapt and find a safe(r) solution. Actually a human tends to figure out from the surrounding environment that a specific street has its oddities (maybe its a one way street with a single lane and people cross wherever they want so the driver drives a bit slower to avoid the insurance paperwork), or if it is raining it is going to be a bit more careful because puddles can hide dangers, high speed can cause aqua planning and so on. A computer driven car cannot do these things (at least not now or in the foreseeable future), so it is no better than a human. It might see better than a human because radar, but besides braking faster let's say, it cannot do anything else with the available information. i do not know specifically how fast Waymo cars navigate busy intersections, but I've seen Tesla cars and they're pretty slow compared to a human driver. > They certainly have a system analogous to "instinct", and they can learn (even if not in the same way as humans, but who says it's the only way?). It is true that they don't really understand the context, but I wonder how important that is compared to the speed of reaction, lack of distractions and ability to control the vehicle? The context matters to the reaction, because if you see a something that you know it is not going to hurt your car in any way, you have no reason to slam on the brakes, but a radar will see an obstacle and slam the brakes. I may not be able to perfectly explain why I don't feel like jumping on the driverless cars bandwagon, but they are a very long way from being a safe alternative to actual drivers.
  - smsm42 3y ago
    > A computer driven car cannot do these things ( This is not true - a computer driven car can do many of these things, moreover - a regular car already does many of these things, such as detecting low traction in rain, ice, etc. Moreover, you are describing Batman - the peak of human condition. Regular human is capable of noticing those things, but more often than not won't notice them because he's distracted by a quarrel with his boss/wife, is thinking about Roman empire and sometimes even browsing his phone. For most people, driving is an automatic lizard-brain activity, and they don't meticulously calculate the wetness of the pavement, the translucency of the air and other conditions to figure out the best speed and trajectory. They just drive by the seat of their pants and hope it'll be ok. > they're pretty slow compared to a human driver. They're "pretty slow" what? Do you mean they have slower than human reaction times? I would rather disbelieve this without a documental proof. Or you mean they are moving slower? Then I would totally believe it, and it's easy to explain - if they move faster and something happens, they'd be sued much more readily in this situation. It's better to slow down than to risk the blowback, even if the car won't be at fault, the speed will always be taken as a measure of guilt. > The context matters to the reaction, because if you see a something that you know it is not going to hurt your car in any way, you have no reason to slam on the brakes No human can't make such kind of decisions in the 0.2s they need to be made. If you notice something jumping at you unexpectedly, you either slam the brakes (and then it turns out it was just a plastic bag blown by the wind, and nothing happens) or you fail to slam the brakes and pray to the Almighty that it would be the plastic bag and not something worse. Context doesn't work in humans in those kinds of timeframes, it's just not enough time. If I ever happen to be in the place of the plastic bag, I'd rather take faster slamming than slower "context", and more potentially unnecessary caution than more accidents.

spongebobstoes 3y ago

It would be more reasonable to compare a self driving car to the median or average human driver, rather than a highly skilled one. That's what we're dealing with today: humans (distracted, elderly, tired, bored) who routinely kill and maim each other with cars. As long as self driving cars will reduce the number of deaths per mile driven (and I think the data shows that), I think they should be allowed on the roads.

Denvercoder9 3y ago

> Those 10 times safer than humans have no actual meaning in practice I'd say that accidents or injuries per mile driven has quite a lot actual meaning. I don't know if they are at 10x compared to human drivers on those stats yet, but when they are, I'd say it's a reasonable take to say that they're 10x safer.

smsm42 3y ago

> the proponents of self-driving cars tout the fact that computer driven cars are way safer than human drivers. And they're not. It sounds like you conflating two claims: safety(computer car) == 100% and safety(computer car) > safety(human driver). Refuting the former (which is easy) does not refute the latter, though the converse would be true of course. But is it true that human driver is safer or the same? > because if they can brake 100ms faster than a human would, in practice it makes no difference That claim would be stronger with some better substantiation. I think it makes sense that faster reaction time and better focus leads to better safety record. That's why we prosecute people for DUI - because we have reasons to believe that slower reaction and more distracted driving when under influence leads to worse safety. Consequently, faster reaction and less distracted driving would lead to a better one. It will still be imperfect, but likely less imperfect than human driver, with lesser failure rate. > What would make a difference would be to be fully aware of anything that might happen, You make impossible demand - no mechanism or system could be ready for "anything that might happen", and nobody - at least nobody not having super-natural clairvoyance - could be aware of absolutely everything everywhere. There will always be weird coincidences and hidden things, the question is how fast the system can adapt and find a safe(r) solution. > Self-driving cars don't have three things that humans have: instinct, experience and contextual awareness They certainly have a system analogous to "instinct", and they can learn (even if not in the same way as humans, but who says it's the only way?). It is true that they don't really understand the context, but I wonder how important that is compared to the speed of reaction, lack of distractions and ability to control the vehicle? I would estimate most of the accidents happen because the driver either didn't notice something, or didn't react in time, or reacted not in the way that is optimal (like slamming the brakes on an icy road, or swerving too hard and losing control). A computerized driver would be much better on those dimensions. It would be worse on deciphering complex and unusual scenarios, but I don't think most of the accidents are of that nature.

ExoticPearTree 3y ago
> You make impossible demand - no mechanism or system could be ready for "anything that might happen", and nobody - at least nobody not having super-natural clairvoyance - could be aware of absolutely everything everywhere. There will always be weird coincidences and hidden things, the question is how fast the system can adapt and find a safe(r) solution. Actually a human tends to figure out from the surrounding environment that a specific street has its oddities (maybe its a one way street with a single lane and people cross wherever they want so the driver drives a bit slower to avoid the insurance paperwork), or if it is raining it is going to be a bit more careful because puddles can hide dangers, high speed can cause aqua planning and so on. A computer driven car cannot do these things (at least not now or in the foreseeable future), so it is no better than a human. It might see better than a human because radar, but besides braking faster let's say, it cannot do anything else with the available information. i do not know specifically how fast Waymo cars navigate busy intersections, but I've seen Tesla cars and they're pretty slow compared to a human driver. > They certainly have a system analogous to "instinct", and they can learn (even if not in the same way as humans, but who says it's the only way?). It is true that they don't really understand the context, but I wonder how important that is compared to the speed of reaction, lack of distractions and ability to control the vehicle? The context matters to the reaction, because if you see a something that you know it is not going to hurt your car in any way, you have no reason to slam on the brakes, but a radar will see an obstacle and slam the brakes. I may not be able to perfectly explain why I don't feel like jumping on the driverless cars bandwagon, but they are a very long way from being a safe alternative to actual drivers.
- smsm42 3y ago
  > A computer driven car cannot do these things ( This is not true - a computer driven car can do many of these things, moreover - a regular car already does many of these things, such as detecting low traction in rain, ice, etc. Moreover, you are describing Batman - the peak of human condition. Regular human is capable of noticing those things, but more often than not won't notice them because he's distracted by a quarrel with his boss/wife, is thinking about Roman empire and sometimes even browsing his phone. For most people, driving is an automatic lizard-brain activity, and they don't meticulously calculate the wetness of the pavement, the translucency of the air and other conditions to figure out the best speed and trajectory. They just drive by the seat of their pants and hope it'll be ok. > they're pretty slow compared to a human driver. They're "pretty slow" what? Do you mean they have slower than human reaction times? I would rather disbelieve this without a documental proof. Or you mean they are moving slower? Then I would totally believe it, and it's easy to explain - if they move faster and something happens, they'd be sued much more readily in this situation. It's better to slow down than to risk the blowback, even if the car won't be at fault, the speed will always be taken as a measure of guilt. > The context matters to the reaction, because if you see a something that you know it is not going to hurt your car in any way, you have no reason to slam on the brakes No human can't make such kind of decisions in the 0.2s they need to be made. If you notice something jumping at you unexpectedly, you either slam the brakes (and then it turns out it was just a plastic bag blown by the wind, and nothing happens) or you fail to slam the brakes and pray to the Almighty that it would be the plastic bag and not something worse. Context doesn't work in humans in those kinds of timeframes, it's just not enough time. If I ever happen to be in the place of the plastic bag, I'd rather take faster slamming than slower "context", and more potentially unnecessary caution than more accidents.