←back to thread

Waymos crash less than human drivers

(www.understandingai.org)
345 points rbanffy | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.635s | source
Show context
wnissen ◴[] 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 #
londons_explore ◴[] No.43490833[source]
> One of the drivers had 56 near crashes and 4 actual crashes in less than 20K miles!

There would be a strong argument to simply banning the worst 1% of drivers from driving, and maybe even compensating them with lifetime free taxi rides, on the taxpayers dime.

replies(5): >>43490972 #>>43491240 #>>43491803 #>>43492618 #>>43493995 #
jillesvangurp ◴[] No.43491240[source]
Nah, just revoke their licenses and make it much harder to get one to begin with. Autonomous driving removes the economic necessity of having one. Just get a proper car that can drive you to work. No need for you to do anything. Catch up on lost sleep (a common cause of accidents is people being to tired to drive) or whatever.

Expect to pay for the privilege of driving yourself and putting others at risk. If you really want to drive yourself, you'll just have to skill up to get a license and proper training, get extra insurance for the increased liability, etc. And then if you prove to be unworthy of having a license after all, it will be taken away. Because it's a privilege and not a right to have one and others on the road will insist that you are competent to drive. And with all the autonomous and camera equipped cars, incompetent drivers will be really easy to spot and police.

It will take a while before we get there; this won't happen overnight. But that's where it's going. Most people will choose not to drive most of the time for financial reasons. Driving manually then becomes a luxury. Getting a license becomes optional, not a rite of passage that every teenager takes. Eventually, owning cars that enable manual driving will become more expensive or may not even be road legal in certain areas. Etc.

replies(4): >>43491483 #>>43491695 #>>43492614 #>>43493276 #
trollbridge ◴[] No.43493276[source]
Lower income people, in the U.S., tend to live in cheap areas and use a car to access employment in an hour+ radius. Making driving expensive for them simply means limiting their employment or cutting them off from it entirely.

Driving should not be a privilege exclusively for rich people. Poor people cannot afford to pay an Uber to drive them around and can’t afford to buy some Tesla with FSD either. Waymo would be grossly unaffordable for a 120 mile daily round trip commute.

In Australia I met people with even longer commutes - going 150km to get to a job, mostly due to how unaffordable housing has become.

If you want to take away people’s cars, you need to make sure they can access employment and have affordable, safe housing. Remember that half the population makes less than the median income.

replies(4): >>43494005 #>>43494126 #>>43495935 #>>43507824 #
1. pc86 ◴[] No.43494005[source]
Driving is not a right, it is a privilege.

Someone's individual economic circumstances are irrelevant. You can either drive safely or you can't.

replies(1): >>43496317 #
2. trollbridge ◴[] No.43496317[source]
No one said it isn’t a privilege.

I don’t agree with making driving something only the wealthy do, though.

replies(1): >>43504858 #
3. pc86 ◴[] No.43504858[source]
False equivalency. Even taken to extreme ends nothing here can be construed as suggesting "only the wealthy" should be allowed or able to drive.

The moment someone suggests enforcement of a law someone comes running in yelling about how it's regressive and will disproportionately affect the poor, and by extension "only the wealthy" will be able to do whatever.

Everything disproportionately affects the poor because it's very hard to be poor.

And the moment you say we shouldn't enforce laws because it will make poor peoples' lives harder you are saying that something is no longer a privilege. That poor people should be able to break the law with lesser or no consequence because they are poor.