3 ms·
the nature of the accidents also makes a difference tho. A small fender bender is common in human drivers. A catastrophic crash (like t-boning into a bus) is r
by chii 2y ago
the nature of the accidents also makes a difference tho.
A small fender bender is common in human drivers. A catastrophic crash (like t-boning into a bus) is rare (it'd make the news for example).
Autodriving, on the other hand, almost never makes fender benders. But they do t-bone into busses in rare occasions - which also makes the news.
- Terr_ 2y agoIf only it were easier to get the stats in the form of "damage in property/lives in the form of dollars per mile driven", that would let us kinda-combine both big tragic events with fender-benders. (Yeah, I know it means putting an actuarial cost on a human life, but statistics means mathing things up.)
- Panzer04 2y agoYou could just keep life and money separate, it's technically possible for the ratios to be different.
- tsimionescu 2y agoPerhaps the best way to address this would be to look at property damage for car-car or cat-object collisions, and a separate stat for car-pedestrian accidents. In collisions that don't involve pedestrians, the damage to the car/object is generally proportional to the chance that someone was badly injured or killed in those cases - the only thing you get by adding human life costs is to take into account the quality of the safety features of the cars being driven, which should be irrelevant for nay comparison with automated driving. In collisions that do involve pedestrians, this breaks down, since you can easily kill someone with almost 0 damage to the car. So having these two stats per mile driven to compare would probably give you the best chance of a less biased comparison.
- zdragnar 2y agoIt is easy, if you run an insurance company. Knowing that data is literally how they price auto insurance policies. Sadly for the rest of us, it's not exactly easy to get that data from the insurance company.
- Eavolution 2y agoI think my car insurance policy actually does detail what they believe every part of your body + your life to be worth, it might be my old policy though. From memory an arm was £2,000 [Edit]: found the policy: death: £2,500 arm or leg: £2,000 blindness in one or both eyes: £2,000
- elromulous 2y agoWow. Is that a typo for death? Not only do they not value human life much at all, losing multiple limbs is more than dying?
- Fricken 2y agoIt costs more than dying.
- LandR 2y agoI mean, I'd probably rather be dead than lose multiple limbs.
- ethbr1 2y agoAs my father quipped to me when I was younger: 'You know the best thing about a three-legged dog? It's not sad about the limb it's missing: it's happy for the three it still has.'
- looofooo0 2y agoDeath is cheaper in our legal system than taking care of some one disabled for many years.
- throwaway48476 2y agoChina too, that's why you get... those videos.
- deleted 2y ago