Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Waymos crash less than human drivers

    (www.understandingai.org)
    345 points rbanffy | 17 comments | 26 Mar 25 20:57 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
    Terr_ ◴[27 Mar 25 03:40 UTC] No.43490189[source]▶
    Hmmm, perhaps a more-valuable representation would be how the average Waymo vehicle would place as a percentile ranking among human drivers, in accidents-per-mile.

    Ex: "X% of humans do better than Waymo does in accidents per mile."

    That would give us an intuition for what portion of humans ought to let the machine do the work.

    P.S.: On the flip-side, it would not tell us how often those people drove. For example, if the Y% of worse-drivers happen to be people who barely ever drive in the first place, then helping automate that away wouldn't be as valuable. In contrast, if they were the ones who did the most driving...

    replies(3): >>43490415 #>>43490599 #>>43494893 #
    chii ◴[27 Mar 25 04:32 UTC] No.43490415[source]▶
    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.

    replies(1): >>43490488 #
    Terr_ ◴[27 Mar 25 04:52 UTC] No.43490488[source]▶
    If 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.)

    replies(3): >>43490893 #>>43491098 #>>43491404 #
    1. zdragnar ◴[27 Mar 25 08:19 UTC] No.43491404[source]▶
    It 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.

    replies(3): >>43491598 #>>43491915 #>>43492532 #
    2. Eavolution ◴[27 Mar 25 09:01 UTC] No.43491598[source]▶
    I 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

    replies(1): >>43491799 #
    3. elromulous ◴[27 Mar 25 09:38 UTC] No.43491799[source]▶
    Wow. Is that a typo for death? Not only do they not value human life much at all, losing multiple limbs is more than dying?
    replies(3): >>43491992 #>>43492154 #>>43492354 #
    4. potato3732842 ◴[27 Mar 25 10:02 UTC] No.43491915[source]▶
    If the data made their rates look like a fair deal they'd be plastering it on billboards.
    replies(1): >>43492335 #
    5. LandR ◴[27 Mar 25 10:15 UTC] No.43491992{3}[source]▶
    I mean, I'd probably rather be dead than lose multiple limbs.
    replies(1): >>43492724 #
    6. Fricken ◴[27 Mar 25 10:40 UTC] No.43492154{3}[source]▶
    It costs more than dying.
    7. chii ◴[27 Mar 25 11:08 UTC] No.43492335[source]▶
    Their competitors would also know, and specifically know which category to compete in to do the most damage.
    replies(1): >>43493641 #
    8. looofooo0 ◴[27 Mar 25 11:11 UTC] No.43492354{3}[source]▶
    Death is cheaper in our legal system than taking care of some one disabled for many years.
    replies(1): >>43492478 #
    9. throwaway48476 ◴[27 Mar 25 11:28 UTC] No.43492478{4}[source]▶
    China too, that's why you get... those videos.
    replies(1): >>43507482 #
    10. steveBK123 ◴[27 Mar 25 11:37 UTC] No.43492532[source]▶
    Putting aside Waymo specifically for a second (whom I believe is the leader in the space, but also self operates their own custom cars).

    If the current state of commercially available ADAS was dramatically reducing accident rates, then Teslas etc would have lower insurance rates. And yet they instead have higher insurance rates.

    replies(1): >>43492592 #
    11. iamacyborg ◴[27 Mar 25 11:46 UTC] No.43492592[source]▶
    Is Tesla’s higher insurance rate not related to them being more common targets of vandalism?
    replies(3): >>43492630 #>>43492927 #>>43497713 #
    12. steveBK123 ◴[27 Mar 25 11:51 UTC] No.43492630{3}[source]▶
    That is entirely new issue and insurance does not respond this quickly.

    Tesla's have had higher insurance for 5+ years. Some of which is due to wait times on repairs, costs of repairs, and also accident rates.

    13. ethbr1 ◴[27 Mar 25 12:06 UTC] No.43492724{4}[source]▶
    As 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.'
    14. tonyhb ◴[27 Mar 25 12:33 UTC] No.43492927{3}[source]▶
    AFAIK, it's due to things like single frame construction and expensive + backlogged parts which you order directly from Tesla (as opposed to, eg, a drivetrain that may be made for 3 separate manufacturers).

    Or, when you do have an accident it's typically more expensive to repair.

    15. potato3732842 ◴[27 Mar 25 13:49 UTC] No.43493641{3}[source]▶
    I don't think that's possible. I don't think this is a "cooperate greed, nobody wants to end the gravy train by starting a price war" situation. I think it's a "the myriad of stuff you have to do to run a compliant company sets the price floor" situation. The fact that there is no nuclear "well I guess I just can't afford insurance, if I lose my house so be it" option available to customers prevents it all from caving in.
    16. aussiegreenie ◴[27 Mar 25 20:19 UTC] No.43497713{3}[source]▶
    No, Teslas are hard to repair. The insurance rates were always higher than similar ICE vehicles. Any extra problems are marginal.
    17. ◴[28 Mar 25 16:46 UTC] No.43507482{5}[source]▶