4 ms·
> Why? What percentage of speeding, for instance, do you think materialises into a crash? Even the most dangerous unsafe actions like running a red light won't
by Ukv 2y ago
> Why?
What percentage of speeding, for instance, do you think materialises into a crash? Even the most dangerous unsafe actions like running a red light won't cause a crash most of the time. So if a 17y/o crashes every 70,000 miles, they're doing something unsafe far more frequently than that.
> every intervention should be treated like an autopilot failure in aviation: more than we do for crashes
I think the benchmark for now should be whether it's safer than a human driver. We could compare human crashes caused to autonomous crashes caused, or unsafe human actions to unsafe autonomous actions, but I believe you're trying to conflate actual human crashes to unsafe autonomous actions.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> you're trying to conflate actual human crashes to unsafe autonomous actions For a Level 5 system, yes, a situation where the car requires intervention is equivalent to a crash or avoided crash. Particularly if it won’t have a steering wheel or pedals.
- Ukv 2y agoA disengagement may be equivalent to a potential crash (or, just a mistake on behalf of the human doing the disengaging), but not to one actual crash. That someone intervenes to prevent a dodgy overtake does not mean that car was definitely (or even likely) going to crash had they not intervened, for instance.