Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Considering that over 6000 pedestrians died last year, I think you both are giving drivers more credit than they deserve.
On average there's about one traffic fatality per 100 million miles driven. According to what I've read recently, the robo cars have collectively logged about 10 million miles. So if we look just at the raw numbers the robo car is looking very poor right at the moment. We need to see probably something like 100x the number of robo car miles before any sort of valid statistical claim might be made, IMO.
Of course there are all kinds of other considerations that can be thrown in here. City vs highway miles. Dry vs wet vs icy roads. Impaired driver vs sober driver. Etc, etc.
Add up how many miles are driven by all drivers per year vs these robo-cars. Then remove the pedestrian deaths that were totally unavoidable like kids darting out right in front of a car with no warning etc. I don't believe these robo-cars can understand "warning" like a kid running down a driveway towards the street or on a bicycle riding down the sidewalk as the kid looks like he may cross the street.
If it's not on the street does the computer "see it"?
I'm sure things will get better as more people are killed/injured...
The computer can make the kid versus adults calculations easier than biological units can. And it doesn't tunnel vision towards an individual event while doing it. We just have to think of the possible events to prepare it. Be it a kid or moose expected behaviors versus a deer brought up in a sister thread. We are just in the beginning phases of finding those events and programming for the robotic takeover of the public roads
Autonomous cars still have a better driving record than humans. Will they eliminate accidents entirely? Of course not. But should efforts be stopped because accidents still occur, even if at a reduced rate? Of course not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40
Tell that to the poor soul who just got killed.
This 'logic' makes zero sense. It's a vapid appeal to emotion over the facts.
Air travel is demonstrably safer than highway travel. The fact that people die in airplane crashes doesn't change that.
Wearing a seat belt makes one safer than not wearing one. The fact that it doesn't offer 100% security doesn't change that.
Similarly, your absurd demand that someone talk to a dead person (a concept that makes about as much sense as your 'logic') doesn't change reality, no matter how much your inner Luddite wishes otherwise.
This 'logic' makes zero sense. It's a vapid appeal to emotion over the facts.
Air travel is demonstrably safer than highway travel. The fact that people die in airplane crashes doesn't change that.
Sure, but how long did it take from the first flight, until we had safe, affordable and functioning public air routes?
I'm excited at the notion of the AV technology and what it might enable. But my sense is the technology is being pressed toward service way too fast. This isn't like the personal computer where the "blue screen" was perfectly acceptable on a daily basis in the early going.
No they weren't.
In 1917 automotive manufacturing had its biggest year ever. WW2 stalled things by interrupting railroad service, but after the war production went along making records, year after year. History of the American Automobile Industry Chapter 22
Rules against texting while driving (or monitoring), and distracted driving (monitoring) and impaired driving (monitoring) will and should! remain in place.
Our dead pedestrian is an example of why. The self driving cars that will be purchased will not be robo-cars; cars with enhanced cruise control will become common, I think.
That’s why I said 120 years vs 100 years ago. By 1917 people were comfortable with cars when they realized the potential. People are afraid of stuff until they get comfortable with the technology.
Several years ago early in the technological experimentation and testing there were a number of articles on how the human factor was the wild card in Autonomous vehicles.
Humans respond to decision making based on emotion, gut feelings and what they think is logical.
There are so many accidents involving death where the person thought they could beat the light, misjudged a car while crossing the road or pulled out not sensing the distance of an oncoming vehicle. The hapless driver who is not at fault has no other choice than to hold on and witness the ongoing tragedy happening avoidably in front of them.
This happens each day..........autonomous vehicles such as this one involved in the pedestrians death will unfortunately continue to be involved in accidents as long as human reasoning is involved.
There are various reports out there now based on mileage and accidents and they are finding the autonomous cars don't respond well to the quirkiness of human drivers.
This 'logic' makes zero sense. It's a vapid appeal to emotion over the facts.
Air travel is demonstrably safer than highway travel. The fact that people die in airplane crashes doesn't change that.
Wearing a seat belt makes one safer than not wearing one. The fact that it doesn't offer 100% security doesn't change that.
Similarly, your absurd demand that someone talk to a dead person (a concept that makes about as much sense as your 'logic') doesn't change reality, no matter how much your inner Luddite wishes otherwise.
Figures don't lie, but liars figure. You can twist statistics anyway you like. The argument that flying is safer than driving is based on the fact that more people are killed in motor vehicle accidents then in air crashes. Well doh, most people spend more time in their car then in an airplane. Even most frequent flyers don't fly every single day, but they probably drive just about every day. Since I don't fly, I'm 100% more likely to die in my car then in an airplane. But if you want to twist the statistics the other way, look at hours flying vs hours driving. In that case you are about 21 times more likely to die in one hour of flying vs one hour of driving.
The self-driving car proponents have already decided that self-driving cars are safer than human driven cars, so they are just going to create statistics to back their theory up.
The self-driving car proponents have already decided that self-driving cars are safer than human driven cars, so they are just going to create statistics to back their theory up.
You do know...a human being was at the wheel. These self driving cars are early prototypes designed to help them learn how to drive. The human being failed here, and folks are blaming the vehicle for not fixing the human error. That driver could have pressed the brake.
Are they safer than human driven cars? I would argue that the statistics say that Ubers version is not, but that Waymo (google) is. If you look at the data from California especially you can see that Uber is 3 years behind Waymo in how well their vehicle drives.
Which stresses even more that this was a human failure. The driver should have hit the brakes.
And you know what? The police who reviewed the video of the incident have stated that they do not believe the driver could have.
Add up how many miles are driven by all drivers per year vs these robo-cars. Then remove the pedestrian deaths that were totally unavoidable like kids darting out right in front of a car with no warning etc. I don't believe these robo-cars can understand "warning" like a kid running down a driveway towards the street or on a bicycle riding down the sidewalk as the kid looks like he may cross the street.
If it's not on the street does the computer "see it"?
I'm sure things will get better as more people are killed/injured...
So since the police have stated that the human driver did not have sufficient time to react to this person that the Uber car hit, do we get to subtract them as well?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
