←back to thread

Waymos crash less than human drivers

(www.understandingai.org)
345 points rbanffy | 2 comments | 26 Mar 25 20:57 UTC | HN request time: 0.437s | source
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 #
londons_explore ◴[27 Mar 25 06:18 UTC] 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 #
mattlondon ◴[27 Mar 25 09:39 UTC] No.43491803[source]▶
It kinda works already without outright banning them: the mandatory insurance will get more and more expensive the more accidents they have.

So they price themselves out.

Of course, they may then decide not to have insurance at all. In most countries that is illegal and doing that in a premeditated way is criminality and something else entirely.

Not sure if insurance is mandatory in the US or not - I assume instead you just get into a gunfight with the other party instead?/s

replies(5): >>43491866 #>>43491898 #>>43492543 #>>43493358 #>>43495904 #
londons_explore ◴[27 Mar 25 09:54 UTC] No.43491866[source]▶
If you're having an accident costing $10k twice a year, your insurance ought to cost at least $20k/year.

But for whatever reason, it seems such people end up with far lower (yet still expensive) insurance quotes at more like $4k/year.

replies(1): >>43492096 #
potato3732842 ◴[27 Mar 25 10:30 UTC] No.43492096[source]▶
They can't charge $20k/yr because that costs more than buying a POS, not registering it and getting it out of impound a couple times and then abandoning it.

With numbers like that you're fundamentally running against the people's willingness to comply (which includes the cop's willingness to enforce).

replies(2): >>43492552 #>>43492690 #
n4r9 ◴[27 Mar 25 12:01 UTC] No.43492690[source]▶
That doesn't make any sense. The insurance company willingly loses money just to avoid the possibility of someone driving illegally?
replies(1): >>43493460 #
potato3732842 ◴[27 Mar 25 13:32 UTC] No.43493460[source]▶
They're not losing money. They're taking it from everyone else.

"oh you hit a mailbox during an ice storm that we paid out $50 for after your deductible, that'll be a $400/6mo increase in premiums for the next five years"

replies(1): >>43494275 #
n4r9 ◴[27 Mar 25 14:50 UTC] No.43494275[source]▶
Still doesn't seem to add up. Consider someone that causes accidents at a rate of £20k/yr, and whose insurance is £4k/y. Either they're insanely wealthy and are paying the repair costs themselves via deductibles, or the insurance companies are losing money.
replies(1): >>43503395 #
1. potato3732842 ◴[28 Mar 25 09:52 UTC] No.43503395[source]▶
You don't understand. Insurance is using that person as a pretext to jack up the rate of everyone who shares demographics with that person. Even if that person is only paying in 80% of what they cost on a 5yr basis a bunch of cheaper people are getting screwed into paying 200%. It works better for insurance company this way because at least they're getting 80% out of the guy rather than zero.
replies(1): >>43505755 #
2. n4r9 ◴[28 Mar 25 14:18 UTC] No.43505755[source]▶
Demographic risk pooling makes sense for moderate-risk individuals (despite being ethically horrendous). But for extreme outliers like this, the insurance company has a very high expectation that they're going to lose money in the coming year if they offer a premium below 15-20k. It just doesn't make financial sense to do so. At least in the UK you're obliged to declare the last five years of accidents and claims when applying for insurance, and I'd be surprised if they're not looking out for red flags like this.