7 ms·

Every time I hear about the amazingly low accident rates in current generation self-driving cars I'm reminded of this joke (unfortunately I can't remember the s

by buss 11y ago

Every time I hear about the amazingly low accident rates in current generation self-driving cars I'm reminded of this joke (unfortunately I can't remember the source): Grandpa, what did you do before self-driving cars? Well, we just drove them ourselves. We just needed a little practice and to take a test. Wow, and nobody got killed!? Oh, no, millions of people died.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Squarel 11y ago
This will only be the case when all cars are self-driving. Many of these articles do not give a comparison...so,11 per 1.7m miles sounds awesome, but how do you know what the current rate is? The data I found had a passenger vehicle fatal crash per 100m miles as between 1.0 and 1.33, and a property damage only crash rate per 100m miles of 145, which relate to 0.01 fatalities per 1m miles, and 1.45 property only crashes per 1m miles. EDIT for link because posting went silly http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/large-truck-and-bus-crash-facts-2012 http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/large-tr...
- pdxandi 11y ago
  I think it's important to note that the 11 accidents the self-driving cars were involved in were the fault of the other driver.
  - ams6110 11y ago
    At fault doesn't always mean "sole contributor" to the cause of the accident.
- Anm 11y ago
  The article is pretty clear that most of the light-damage, no-injury accidents don't get reported, and that all 11 accidents fell in that category. Half the point of the article is that this data is not well known. Granted, taking those 1.45 and 55% figures, we might compare the 11 accidents to approximately 3.2 accident (reported and unreported) per million miles in passenger vehicles. Emphasis on "approximately".
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    That 11 accidents is per 1.7 mil miles so the number you would want to compare is 6.5 not 11. That said, I don't think you can compare those numbers because it really isn't clear what that "55%" number is supposed to mean. Doing my own back of the envelope: ~3 trillion miles driven in 2010 drivers involed in PDO (property damage only) crashes: 18.5 million People injured in crashes in 2010: 4 million (from http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/812013.pdf http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/812013.pdf page 143) These numbers include estimates for unreported accidents Expected crashes for self driving cars based on the above number 6.2 crashes per million miles 1.3 injuries per million miles Actual number of crashes per million miles (11/1.7) 6.5 crashes per million miles 0 injuries per million miles Of course, we have no idea if this comparison is at all valid. Given that the incidence of accidents is highly dependent on the ratio of highway miles to street miles, I doubt the comparison is at all accurate. I suspect that since the greatest challenge to self driving cars in on streets, self driving cars have traveled a higher ratio of street to highway miles than normal.
- dysfunction 11y ago
  So it would seem purely based on these numbers that the Google cars have had about 4.5 times the mean rate of property-damage-only crashes. However, these statistics don't show us what the shape of the curve looks like, so we have no idea what percentile the Google cars are in. If we take Google at their word that not one of the 11 crashes was caused by the self-driving system, then these numbers aren't evidence against the self-driving car being safer even with human drivers sharing the road. It's possible the car was driving unsafely in some way that increased its risk of accident without ever directly causing them, but we can't even guess at that without knowing the probability of their crash rate being this distance from the mean by pure chance. So, do you really think the roads will only be safer when all cars are self-driving--you don't believe there will either be an incremental benefit in overall safety as more self-driving cars get on the road, or a specific safety benefit to owners of self-driving cars?
- Cakez0r 11y ago
  > Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2012
dfan 11y ago
I thought it was original when I saw it last month: https://twitter.com/cat_beltane/status/588359354136403969 https://twitter.com/cat_beltane/status/588359354136403969 Had you encountered it before?
- buss 11y ago
  I vaguely remember seeing it many months ago, but my memory has been known to lie to me. This may very well be the original source, thanks!
Zirro 11y ago
I can already imagine intense debates about whether to outlaw human-driven cars in a (perhaps not so) distant future.
- fixermark 11y ago
  I imagine this going one of two ways: either human-operated vehicles might be outlawed, or auto companies will apply market pressure to favor people not manually driving (steep, steep discounts in insurance for self-driving vehicles, since many states still require insurance but if the self-driving cars reach the safety goals they're aiming at, it's basically free money for insurers to insure them at any price).
- koenigdavidmj 11y ago
  I've been thinking a bit about good places to adopt this early. Lānaʻi might be a good candidate: absolute isolation from other road systems, a small population (3000 people), and a single owner (Larry Ellison) who's just the sort of filthy rich technophile who might be willing to replace an entire island's cars. Singapore could be the first major city to make the move, due to its authoritarian government (hey, I don't like it, but it might make this easier), strict rules to keep the stock of vehicles relatively new, and relative isolation from other road systems (only two bridges to Malaysia).
  - astrocat 11y ago
    I'm not entirely sure just how much Larry can do - it's really the 2% of the island that's state owned that includes the public roads. Hawaii in general seems like a great place to start a lot of "infrastructure 2.0" (if I may carelessly make up a term) projects geographically, but the logistics are tough because so much of the population is desperately poor, there's already a lot of class/ethnic tension and to top it all off, local government is a mess.
- branchan 11y ago
  Probably very unlikely unless you solve poverty.

by buss 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Squarel 11y ago

This will only be the case when all cars are self-driving. Many of these articles do not give a comparison...so,11 per 1.7m miles sounds awesome, but how do you know what the current rate is? The data I found had a passenger vehicle fatal crash per 100m miles as between 1.0 and 1.33, and a property damage only crash rate per 100m miles of 145, which relate to 0.01 fatalities per 1m miles, and 1.45 property only crashes per 1m miles. EDIT for link because posting went silly http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/large-truck-and-bus-crash-facts-2012 http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/large-tr...

pdxandi 11y ago
I think it's important to note that the 11 accidents the self-driving cars were involved in were the fault of the other driver.
- ams6110 11y ago
  At fault doesn't always mean "sole contributor" to the cause of the accident.
Anm 11y ago
The article is pretty clear that most of the light-damage, no-injury accidents don't get reported, and that all 11 accidents fell in that category. Half the point of the article is that this data is not well known. Granted, taking those 1.45 and 55% figures, we might compare the 11 accidents to approximately 3.2 accident (reported and unreported) per million miles in passenger vehicles. Emphasis on "approximately".
- shkkmo 11y ago
  That 11 accidents is per 1.7 mil miles so the number you would want to compare is 6.5 not 11. That said, I don't think you can compare those numbers because it really isn't clear what that "55%" number is supposed to mean. Doing my own back of the envelope: ~3 trillion miles driven in 2010 drivers involed in PDO (property damage only) crashes: 18.5 million People injured in crashes in 2010: 4 million (from http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/812013.pdf http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/812013.pdf page 143) These numbers include estimates for unreported accidents Expected crashes for self driving cars based on the above number 6.2 crashes per million miles 1.3 injuries per million miles Actual number of crashes per million miles (11/1.7) 6.5 crashes per million miles 0 injuries per million miles Of course, we have no idea if this comparison is at all valid. Given that the incidence of accidents is highly dependent on the ratio of highway miles to street miles, I doubt the comparison is at all accurate. I suspect that since the greatest challenge to self driving cars in on streets, self driving cars have traveled a higher ratio of street to highway miles than normal.
dysfunction 11y ago
So it would seem purely based on these numbers that the Google cars have had about 4.5 times the mean rate of property-damage-only crashes. However, these statistics don't show us what the shape of the curve looks like, so we have no idea what percentile the Google cars are in. If we take Google at their word that not one of the 11 crashes was caused by the self-driving system, then these numbers aren't evidence against the self-driving car being safer even with human drivers sharing the road. It's possible the car was driving unsafely in some way that increased its risk of accident without ever directly causing them, but we can't even guess at that without knowing the probability of their crash rate being this distance from the mean by pure chance. So, do you really think the roads will only be safer when all cars are self-driving--you don't believe there will either be an incremental benefit in overall safety as more self-driving cars get on the road, or a specific safety benefit to owners of self-driving cars?
Cakez0r 11y ago
> Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2012

dfan 11y ago

I thought it was original when I saw it last month: https://twitter.com/cat_beltane/status/588359354136403969 https://twitter.com/cat_beltane/status/588359354136403969 Had you encountered it before?

buss 11y ago
I vaguely remember seeing it many months ago, but my memory has been known to lie to me. This may very well be the original source, thanks!

Zirro 11y ago

I can already imagine intense debates about whether to outlaw human-driven cars in a (perhaps not so) distant future.

fixermark 11y ago
I imagine this going one of two ways: either human-operated vehicles might be outlawed, or auto companies will apply market pressure to favor people not manually driving (steep, steep discounts in insurance for self-driving vehicles, since many states still require insurance but if the self-driving cars reach the safety goals they're aiming at, it's basically free money for insurers to insure them at any price).
koenigdavidmj 11y ago
I've been thinking a bit about good places to adopt this early. Lānaʻi might be a good candidate: absolute isolation from other road systems, a small population (3000 people), and a single owner (Larry Ellison) who's just the sort of filthy rich technophile who might be willing to replace an entire island's cars. Singapore could be the first major city to make the move, due to its authoritarian government (hey, I don't like it, but it might make this easier), strict rules to keep the stock of vehicles relatively new, and relative isolation from other road systems (only two bridges to Malaysia).
- astrocat 11y ago
  I'm not entirely sure just how much Larry can do - it's really the 2% of the island that's state owned that includes the public roads. Hawaii in general seems like a great place to start a lot of "infrastructure 2.0" (if I may carelessly make up a term) projects geographically, but the logistics are tough because so much of the population is desperately poor, there's already a lot of class/ethnic tension and to top it all off, local government is a mess.
branchan 11y ago
Probably very unlikely unless you solve poverty.