←back to thread

410 points jjulius | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.437s | source
Show context
AlchemistCamp ◴[] No.41889077[source]
The interesting question is how good self-driving has to be before people tolerate it.

It's clear that having half the casualty rate per distance traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable. How about a quarter? Or a tenth? Accidents caused by human drivers are one of the largest causes of injury and death, but they're not newsworthy the way an accident involving automated driving is. It's all too easy to see a potential future where many people die needlessly because technology that could save lives is regulated into a greatly reduced role.

replies(20): >>41889114 #>>41889120 #>>41889122 #>>41889128 #>>41889176 #>>41889205 #>>41889210 #>>41889249 #>>41889307 #>>41889331 #>>41889686 #>>41889898 #>>41890057 #>>41890101 #>>41890451 #>>41893035 #>>41894281 #>>41894476 #>>41895039 #>>41900280 #
gambiting ◴[] No.41889176[source]
>>. How about a quarter? Or a tenth?

The answer is zero. An airplane autopilot has increased the overall safety of airplanes by several orders of magnitude compared to human pilots, but literally no errors in its operation are tolerated, whether they are deadly or not. The exact same standard has to apply to cars or any automated machine for that matter. If there is any issue discovered in any car with this tech then it should be disabled worldwide until the root cause is found and eliminated.

>> It's all too easy to see a potential future where many people die needlessly because technology that could save lives is regulated into a greatly reduced role.

I really don't like this argument, because we could already prevent literally all automotive deaths tomorrow through existing technology and legislation and yet we are choosing not to do this for economic and social reasons.

replies(6): >>41889247 #>>41889255 #>>41890925 #>>41891202 #>>41891217 #>>41893571 #
esaym ◴[] No.41889247[source]
You can't equate airplane safety with automotive safety. I worked at an aircraft repair facility doing government contracts for a number of years. In one instance, somebody lost the toilet paper holder for one of the aircraft. This holder was simply a piece of 10 gauge wire that was bent in a way to hold it and supported by wire clamps screwed to the wall. Making a new one was easy but since it was a new part going on the aircraft we had to send it to a lab to be certified to hold a roll of toilet paper to 9 g's. In case the airplane crashed you wouldn't want a roll of toilet paper flying around I guess. And that cost $1,200.
replies(1): >>41889341 #
gambiting ◴[] No.41889341[source]
No, I'm pretty sure I can in this regard - any automotive "autopilot" has to be held to the same standard. It's either zero accidents or nothing.
replies(1): >>41891911 #
1. murderfs ◴[] No.41891911[source]
This only works for aerospace because everything and everyone is held to that standard. It's stupid to hold automotive autopilots to the same standard as a plane's autopilot when a third of fatalities in cars are caused by the pilots being drunk.
replies(1): >>41894352 #
2. kelnos ◴[] No.41894352[source]
I don't think that's a useful argument.

I think we should start allowing autonomous driving when the "driver" is at least as safe as the median driver when the software is unsupervised. (Teslas may or may not be that safe when supervised, but they absolutely are not when unsupervised.)

But once we get to that point, we should absolutely ratchet those standards so automobile safety over time becomes just as safe as airline safety. Safer, if possible.

> It's stupid to hold automotive autopilots to the same standard as a plane's autopilot when a third of fatalities in cars are caused by the pilots being drunk.

That's a weird argument, because both pilots and drivers get thrown in jail if they fly/drive drunk. The standard is the same.