←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: 0.941s | 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 #
1. pc86 ◴[27 Mar 25 14:15 UTC] No.43493897[source]▶
> 4 actual crashes in less than 20K miles

Sorry if you're having a car crash every 6 months or less, you shouldn't have a license.

Driving a car is privilege granted to you by your state, and this state is negligent in its protection of everyone else by letting this idiot continue to drive. Sell your car, take the bus, move closer to work, I don't care.

More than 3 at-fault crashes in a year or more than 10 at-fault crashes ever and you should permanently lose your license forever. That seems more than generous enough.

replies(4): >>43494014 #>>43494318 #>>43495337 #>>43496123 #
2. potato3732842 ◴[27 Mar 25 14:26 UTC] No.43494014[source]▶
It's probably some old "bingo and church" driver who has a 50-50 shot of winding up in the ditch if it snows during Bingo and that "20k" is actually "8yr", the kind of thing insurance would never know about if you're not getting towing coverage through them.
3. derf_ ◴[27 Mar 25 14:54 UTC] No.43494318[source]▶
> Sorry if you're having a car crash every 6 months or less, you shouldn't have a license.

Actual traffic enforcement does not seem to produce this result. This woman is fairly famous on Reddit for her erratic driving, and was reported in 2019 as having been involved in 31 crashes since 2000: https://www.wral.com/story/lawyer-stayumbl-driver-a-victim-o...

She is still driving (with a new license plate after 2019): https://old.reddit.com/r/bullcity/comments/1ji3y82/jesusdos_...

4. eightysixfour ◴[27 Mar 25 16:36 UTC] No.43495337[source]▶
There is already a mechanism for this that the government doesn’t even have to be directly involved in - insurance. At some point you become prohibitively expensive to insure.

However, the government still has to do its part and actually enforce insurance requirements.

My pet hypothesis is that there is a tipping point where the feedback loop between driver safety, ai advancements, and insurance costs will doom manually driven cars faster than most people think.

replies(1): >>43496438 #
5. magicalhippo ◴[27 Mar 25 17:55 UTC] No.43496123[source]▶
Here in Norway we've got a point system[1], and I'm sure we didn't invent it.

Each point lasts for 3 years, and if you accumulate more than 8 you lose your license for 6 months.

A speeding ticket is at least two points, and running a red light or tailgating is three for example. You get double points the first two years after getting your license.

[1]: https://www.vegvesen.no/en/driving-licences/driving-licence-...

6. nomel ◴[27 Mar 25 18:22 UTC] No.43496438[source]▶
> At some point you become prohibitively expensive to insure.

This would probably just cause more uninsured drivers. For California, that's around 17% [1]!

[1] https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-uninsure...

replies(1): >>43497395 #
7. eightysixfour ◴[27 Mar 25 19:49 UTC] No.43497395{3}[source]▶
Yes, that’s why I said

> However, the government still has to do its part and actually enforce insurance requirements.