transportguy

11 ms·

31.
by transportguy 5y ago
Exactly! There are still many ways you can driver safer, so you wouldn't actively pick a riskier option
32.
by transportguy 5y ago
also, we have ways of testing tiredness and effects of age, so augmentation can improve many of the issues with human driving.
33.
by transportguy 5y ago
So if there are no 'good drivers', everyone must be a 'bad driver', so if self driving cars are to be 'good', they need to be better than at least 100% of humans. High bar!
34.
by transportguy 5y ago
and it seems to me from a bit of lookings for statistics just now that if you've been driving for a few years and haven't crashed, you're better than average
35.
by transportguy 5y ago
1. You can only really go on metrics of crashes with your fault, currently. 2. You can't really be certain 3. It would be good to be able to collect data of driver faults without crashes. But how do we do it without giving insurance co
36.
by transportguy 5y ago
'According to the AA Charitable Trust, 40% of UK drivers have crashed by the time they are 23 years old, and 26% of drivers have crashed within two years of obtaining their licence. (Source: https://m.toptests.co.uk/dri
37.
by transportguy 5y ago
It's plausible that 20% of drivers crash enough for 80% to be above average
38.
by transportguy 5y ago
It's also not good enough for them to be better than average human drivers. There are many bad drivers and if you are a good driver, you wouldn't want to switch to anything less safe than your driving