←back to thread

Waymos crash less than human drivers

(www.understandingai.org)
345 points rbanffy | 7 comments | 26 Mar 25 20:57 UTC | HN request time: 0.055s | source | bottom
Show context
wnissen ◴[26 Mar 25 21:37 UTC] No.43487648[source]▶
Serious crash rates are a hockey stick pattern. 20% of the drivers cause 80% of the crashes, to a rough approximation. For the worst 20% of drivers, the Waymo is almost certainly better already.

Honestly, at this point I am more interested in whether they can operate their service profitably and affordably, because they are clearly nailing the technical side.

For example data from a 100 driver study, see table 2.11, p. 29. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/37370 Roughly the same number of drivers had 0 or 1 near-crashes as had 13-50+. One of the drivers had 56 near crashes and 4 actual crashes in less than 20K miles! So the average isn't that helpful here.

replies(10): >>43487761 #>>43487829 #>>43487883 #>>43490189 #>>43490833 #>>43490896 #>>43491630 #>>43493210 #>>43493897 #>>43497042 #
michaelmrose ◴[26 Mar 25 21:53 UTC] No.43487829[source]▶
What about the benefit to the 80% if the 20% were obligated to use software instead of their own wetware in a hypothetical world where this was feasible in all respects. Imagine if you transitioned to most new drivers for instance being issued only permits to use self driving vehicles and older drivers being obligated to switch at 65.
replies(3): >>43488624 #>>43488645 #>>43489154 #
tim333 ◴[26 Mar 25 23:20 UTC] No.43488645[source]▶
As someone getting on towards 65 I have to point out that insurance rates are less for the 65-70s than for any group younger that 55, and claim rates are lower than for any of the under 65s. My relatives didn't really start crashing into stuff till they got to about 90. And then it was kind of slow motion. (for this data https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/choosing-the-righ...)
replies(1): >>43489370 #
potato3732842 ◴[27 Mar 25 01:06 UTC] No.43489370[source]▶
Is that because you're better or because you're less exposed?

Not a lot of 65yo people working 80hr weeks, slogging out 50-100mi commutes or plowing into moose while blinded by the 6am sun on their way back from 3rd shift.

replies(3): >>43490212 #>>43491423 #>>43491616 #
1. toast0 ◴[27 Mar 25 03:44 UTC] No.43490212[source]▶
Insurance rates have a mileage component that should address that, although the smallest mileage category may be too large to really capture that. But if you're doing a 100 mile commute 5 days a week, that's likely beyond the lowest category.
replies(1): >>43490318 #
2. seanmcdirmid ◴[27 Mar 25 04:08 UTC] No.43490318[source]▶
There is talk of per-mile insurance becoming a thing, maybe when per-mile registration taxes finally are? This would benefit a lot of us that come way under the lowest band.
replies(1): >>43490468 #
3. kaikai ◴[27 Mar 25 04:46 UTC] No.43490468[source]▶
Per-mile insurance has existed for a while, from companies like metromile.
replies(1): >>43490496 #
4. seanmcdirmid ◴[27 Mar 25 04:54 UTC] No.43490496{3}[source]▶
Yes, I’ve seen a few but so far never cheaper than per mile insurance, at least where I live. I’ll talk to my agent next year to see if my current home owner insurance company has one that works that way. My current policy uses my phone to track and reward driving habits, but it tracks my bus rides as car rides as well, which sucks. Can’t they come up with an Apple car app or something?
replies(1): >>43490595 #
5. dwighttk ◴[27 Mar 25 05:22 UTC] No.43490595{4}[source]▶
I’m so tempted to use a car insurance app, but in the end I don’t want to run a tracker
replies(1): >>43490649 #
6. macintux ◴[27 Mar 25 05:39 UTC] No.43490649{5}[source]▶
I don’t want to be penalized if I come to a sudden halt on a remote back road, with no one around, to remove a turtle, or a tire, or a bedframe from the road.

(Yes, I’ve done all of the above, multiple times.)

replies(1): >>43492369 #
7. dwighttk ◴[27 Mar 25 11:14 UTC] No.43492369{6}[source]▶
Good point. I hadn’t even thought of getting pinged for non-wrecks.